Legitalk:

[Speaker 0]: You're watching CTF, the Connecticut network, connecting you to state government since 1999.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: 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 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 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 gonna lead us in prayer.

[Rev. Donna Berman (House Chaplain)]: 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: And we'll add a little prayer for the IT system too. Thank you, Donna. Dominic 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 Coleman, you wanna 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. Well, Representative Piscoll, you just went yesterday. You wanna 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. We can still do business on the clerk's desk, I believe, if there's any. And then we'll do announcements.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: I have favorable reports, senate bills. Mister majority leader.

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Thank you, mister speaker. I will be waive the reading of the senate favor report. They'd be tabled to the calendar.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: I see no objection, so order.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: And the daily calendar.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you. We'll still announcements or introductions, please. Raise your hand. I promise the mics don't work.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Test it or

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: 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

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: on television.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: So you may want to go in the other room if you can't have a conversation. So we're 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 Raider in the back. Still hit the button.

[Rep. Moira Rader (98th, Guilford/Branford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I am honored and really excited today to welcome the fourth grade class of East Shoreline Catholic Academy that is rec 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: 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 dress protocols. We don't allow New York Knicks sweatshirts in the chamber, but it's okay. Congratulations on your win last night. It's nice to have you here. I think I saw a representative Belton had her hand up. But she disappeared. Representative Nolan. I'm just gonna kinda go that way.

[Rep. Anthony Nolan (39th, New London)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I'd like to do an introduction.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Yeah. You may proceed.

[Rep. Anthony Nolan (39th, New London)]: So today, I am happy to share that I have doctor Rochelle 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 like with a state representative. 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: The Connecticut College Camels, if I if I'm correct. Yes. Yes. Good NESCAC school. Representative Farrar.

[Rep. Kate Farrar (20th, West Hartford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I rise with a point of personal preference.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may proceed, madam.

[Rep. Kate Farrar (20th, West Hartford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I rise and hope that the chamber will join me in saying a very happy birthday to my goddaughter, 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 wanna 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 can join me in wishing Mira a happy eleventh birthday, I'd much appreciate it.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Happy birthday, Representative Gresko. Deputy Speaker one twenty first. Straffel, what do you have?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: There you go. Thank you, mister speaker. Point of personal privilege. It's been, ten years since, my mom passed away. She was a great lady. She's very instrumental in in my life. We we miss her, very much, and I just wanted to say Thank you.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, representative Gresco.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Representative Gucker.

[Rep. Kenneth Gucker (138th, Danbury)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I rise for a point of personal privilege.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Yeah. Nice shirt.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. So one time

[Rep. Kenneth Gucker (138th, Danbury)]: I get to you, wear it is in here when we have dress down day.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You like my dress down?

[Rep. Kenneth Gucker (138th, Danbury)]: I love it. Yeah. I I don't know what the tie you know, what different tie you do for a dress down, but the green certainly works for you, my friend.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It's getting old and grumpy, that's all. So

[Rep. Kenneth Gucker (138th, Danbury)]: 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 wouldn't 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 to his, from where he comes from, who has fought his way to become a member up here in the in the House, Representative Travis Sims. 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 mister Sims. Thank you, mister Speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Gravalo, one one one, Richfield, Madam Chair of Transportation. What do you have for us, madam?

[Rep. Aimee Berger-Girvalo (111th, Ridgefield)]: Good. Good morning, mister speaker. I rise for an announcement.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Yep.

[Rep. Aimee Berger-Girvalo (111th, Ridgefield)]: 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 much for your participation. Appreciate it very much. It goes to such a wonderful cause.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you. You got my Venmo? Representative Colby? How was the pledge? Is it everything you thought it would be?

[Representative (unidentified) — Pledge leader]: It was. I waited eight years for that moment. Did

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: you really

[Representative (unidentified) — Pledge leader]: so much. Yes.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: I'm sorry about that.

[Representative (unidentified) — Pledge leader]: Thank you. I rise for a purpose of an announcement.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may proceed.

[Representative (unidentified) — Pledge leader]: 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 her visiting here. Thank you for the honor to introduce her. Everybody give her a round of applause.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It's very nice

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: to have

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: you here today. So Representative Menopause?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: I don't think it's working. Hello? Oh.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (96th, New Haven/East Haven)]: Sorry about that. I just wanted to wish all of us that if we do get out of here today or excuse me, just to arise for an announcement. See? I just want 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 gonna be a great event. It's actually put on by Discovering Amistad and led by my brother,

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Chris Menapace. I hope

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: everyone has a great time and can check it out. Shane will come back to order for a second. It should go without saying that we're gonna if you we did think maybe timing would work out, it's not gonna work out. So we will be here late tonight. So if you need to make adjustments to your plans, you're gonna 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 seventy fifth from the City Of Waterbury. The floor, sir.

[Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr. (75th, Waterbury) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, mister speaker. I rise for a point of personal purpose, sir.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may proceed.

[Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr. (75th, Waterbury) — Deputy Speaker]: 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 eighth charter school. It's one of our most successful schools and programs in the city of Waterbury. Want to especially thank Doctor. Barbara Rogerio 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 wanna welcome them to the People's House and give them a nice round of applause and welcome to the People's House.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It's nice to have you all here today. Unfortunately, we 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 gotta gotta 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? Now the chamber will send at ease.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Some of us have done this. We've

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Our chamber's gonna come back to order. We could bring stuff outside while we do that, please, because we have to get down to business and have time for this riffraff. Okay. So, we have no boards that work. So we're gonna go back to 1892 and we're gonna legislate. So here's how it's gonna work. We're gonna 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 gonna call a bill manually. It's gonna be, I believe, SB397, and we're gonna bring it back. If you wanna 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 gotta move. So we're just gonna 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 gonna try to make it work and, yeah, we'll 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 455.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 36, calendar four five five, substitute for Senate Bill number three nine seven as amended by Senate Amendment Schedules a and b, enact concerning democracy and government accountability, favor court of judiciary.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Alright. The chair will recognize Chairman Stastrom. Again, we are on the bill as amended by Senate A and Senate B. Chairman Sastrom?

[Rep. Steven Stafstrom (129th, Bridgeport) — Judiciary Chair]: Mister speaker, I think I need to move passage again. So I will move for acceptance of joint committee's favorite report and passage of the bill as amended by senate amendment a and senate amendment b in concurrence with the senate.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: I I one more reminder. One more reminder. All of your mics are hot. K? Everybody plea everybody pay attention. The mics are all hot. That never happens. Only the minority majority of mics are hot, which means everything you say will be on television. So all the things, the bad things you say about me, try to take them in

[Speaker 0]: the back.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Okay? Both of you. But in all seriousness, they're gonna 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 kinda make this work. So with that, the chair has moved acceptance of the joint committee's fair report and pass of the bill. Chair to Mike further, representative Pavlak Damato, you're the floor, madam.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Okay. Alright. Thank you. And if I may, may I begin?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may begin, madam.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Let's start with the basic question. Do laws matter? Because if immigration laws are 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 fiance visa, we submitted those 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 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 nine eleven. And we don't want another nine eleven. 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. Mister 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. 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, McCullough versus 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 McCullough was a federal bank cashier. And he refused to pay. The state argued that the bank, 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 one, section eight, 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, the court held that these states cannot hinder or tax the constitutional operations of the federal government. Okay.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: I'm fine.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: 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 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 discussed outside in a press conference, it is becoming the norm in this building

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: to

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: I 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 eighty six forty seven, 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. Mister 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 I fully support making sure that somebody who is here legally has all the protections that they are allowed to have under 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 their the spouse that they're they are, divorcing. 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. Because just because you're not getting your way, doesn't mean you get to threaten my client. And I 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 a family, a family from Haiti. Recently, the the exception or the, to have them as a 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, mister speaker, I did 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 gonna read a 100. Just

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Madam, you may read the names. My name.

[Speaker 0]: It's okay.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Yes. You may, madam.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you. Josh Jocelyn Nungare, 12. She was strangled in Houston in Houston, Texas in 2024. She was only 12 years old. Lake and Riley, a nursing student 20

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: We'll just continue. Yep. We'll just continue. Thank you. K. Let's make the mic hot, please. Not gonna be possible. Oh, it's related to that. It's actually Is, Representative Candelora's microphone working? I'd be glad to allow the representative to speak from there.

[Rep. John Piscopo (76th, Thomaston/Burlington/Harwinton) — possible brief interjection]: Test. Test. Test. We got it.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Pavlak Damato, you 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.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: 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 Tibbets, 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. Shandra, sorry. Chris Babcock, 62, killed by an illegal alien in North Carolina. The last one I'm going to talk about has some disturbing details. The individual's name, Chandra Mowley I'm gonna mess up the last name. Nagamalaya. 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 was 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 for 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 01/13/2025 under the Biden administration. Mister 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 it happened last September. And I often think about his his wife and his child and and the effect, the lifetime effect this will have on on them. I also wanna mention and talk about just this past, this past earlier this year. It might have been even late last year as as, time flies when we're in this chamber. But, during the State of the Union, we had a a congressman who actually brought somebody up to the State of the Union from Bristol. And this individual, was brought because his nationalization ceremony, citizen 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 are they're beautiful. And it 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 representative from Watertown did last night, the issues with appropriations and the concern for losing federal funding. There's 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 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. Mister 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 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 this state, but around the country for some of the laws that we are passing. And I recently 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 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 gonna 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 our our work to be up here. Not to lose respect, but to follow our oath to serve our constituency. Mister speaker, I am going to 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 the governor did recognize him, I believe last year in his, in his opening speech. But again, we're individuals who have first hand experience in this process. And, I would like to yield my time to him so we can hear his story.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: So I I can't allow you to just give him the microphone. Okay? 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 Master Francesca of the eightieth, and I had accidentally skipped over representative Nuccio, so she would be first. So I'll if you wanna talk to your leadership and figure it out, we can do that.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Yeah. He no. He he can wait. That's fine. I didn't realize those other individuals were on the board. It was working. So I would, like to respect my colleagues and and not take up the entire time. So I appreciate that.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Madam, thank you very much.

[Member (unidentified)]: Thank

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: you. Representative Mastro Francesco, did who I don't see in the chamber. So we'll we'll we'll let her come back when she's ready. I don't see representative Neutio. So guess what, representative Hoxha? You're in. 784 is yours.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Perfect. Thank you. Oh, it's worked.

[House IT/Operations staff (unidentified)]: Alright. We should be back

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: to normal, so you can speak from your own desk, and the mics aren't live, and the board should work.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Perfect. Thank you, mister speaker. And through you, just some comments that I began making yesterday that I would just like to conclude today.

[Rep. John Piscopo (76th, Thomaston/Burlington/Harwinton) — possible brief interjection]: So

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: thirty years ago, almost to the day, tomorrow marks the day, I will have been in this country for thirty years tomorrow as a legal resident to start off with, and then a United States citizen back in 2006. I didn't have any choice in the matter really because I was a minor and my parents were awarded citizenship after, you know, 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, you know, probably wouldn't be here. We we have a passion for civics and civil service and and history and and what this country is about. And in 2006, that was, you know, the 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 country and look to come to this country legally through the right process. Unfortunately, there there's always gonna 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, and we always have been since our inception. All we ask is that we, that everyone follows the rule of law. And there is a process for for 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 we will take you in, but you need to follow the rules. You need to follow the law. 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 thus, their powers and their, 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 in the opposite direction and working with, federal law enforcement to apprehend violent illegals. I'm not saying that every single illegal is a violent criminal or rapist or murderer, but some are. 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 will pass and will curtail the ability for ICE agents to do their jobs. Mister 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. And I really hope that we we change direction, in 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, the chief executive is on the 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 they're my friends, are that are immigrants. I would highly encourage you to to reconsider, your vote on this and and vote against it. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative, would you care to mark further on the bill as amended? Would you care to mark further on the bill as amended? If not, staff and guests come to the wall of the house. Members take their seats. The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Now would be the time to check the board to make sure your vote isn't properly cast. If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked. And will the clerk please take and announce the tally?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Senate bill three ninety seven as amended by senate a and b. Total number already one forty four necessary for adoption 70 necessary for passage. 73, those voting eight ninety one, those voting eight fifty three absent are voting seven.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: The bill passes as amended in concurrence with the senate. Mister majority leader.

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Thank you mister speaker. I move you immediately transmit calendar four five six to the governor.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Without objection, so ordered. We will briefly allow announcements or introductions briefly. Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I'd like to thank my session. I rise for the purposes of an announcement. I forgot that that's the the the problem.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 Aimee and Mackenzie Fournette, and this is the team behind the insurance and real estate committee. And we just wanted to say thank you, Lucy.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: 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 ladies. So thanks for joining us here today. So Representative Lamarck Muir of the thirty sixth, a nice Dave Matthews song. You have the floor, madam. Representative Lamarck Muir, is your button on on purpose without an accident? At least I got to reference the Dave Matthews song. Representative Ackert of the eighth.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (8th, Coventry)]: Thank you, mister mister speaker. You know, and and 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 represent 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. Right? Again and you 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 the team that I represent. So I see Dave is waving his hand, but thank you for your rep thank I'm not sure I'm getting as much claps as everybody else, but thank you, mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Buck B of the sixty seven.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: Hello, mister speaker. How are you today?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Just just great.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: I just I can see that. I can totally see that now. It's great. Great to follow the good representative from Coventry. Mister speaker, I rise for purpose of introduction, if I may.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may proceed.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: 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 wanna 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 wanna ensure their voices are heard. So I stand here with representative Bucksbaum and Calahino, I think, just walked out. We just missed him. He's working. He's busy, mister speaker. But I wanna make sure that we we let these kids know across the state. We hear your voices. We wanna hear your voices. And if you 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. Mister speaker, these kids are outstanding across the board, and I can't be more proud to stand here with kids from New Milford, the best town in The USA.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, sir. Representative Quinn, and that will be our last one. Unless you have guests, that'll be the last one. Representative Quinn.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, mister 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 if that sort of attire is going to be allowed. But in all seriousness, I'll have a 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

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: it. Last one. Representative Weir.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I rise for introduction. Yeah. 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you all very much for joining us on this busy Friday. With that, we'll get back to oh, mister majority, I apologize. Yes.

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: No. Thank you, mister 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. To the calendar that I moved to be transmitted to the governor has not been voted on. The motion that I would like to make is I move I move immediately transmit calendar four 55 to the governor.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Is there objection to immediate transmittal with the correction? If not, so order. Let's make sure the clerk has all that information and the withdrawal of the prior one, but we didn't take action on it. It shouldn't really matter. With that, will the clerk please call calendar four eight zero?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 40, calendar four eighty, substitute for Senate Bill number five as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule LCO four four one eight, an act concerning online safety. Fair report of general law.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Good morning or afternoon, representative Lamar. 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.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (96th, New Haven/East Haven)]: 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 favor report and passage of the bill in con as amended by senate a.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill as

[Rep. Moira Rader (98th, Guilford/Branford)]: amended by senate amend senate amendment schedule. L

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: a l c o four four one eight in concurrence with the senate representative. Lamar, you have the floor.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (96th, New Haven/East Haven)]: Thank you so much, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I think as a chair, I found a bit of a cheat code. And I'm gonna unfurl it here today. I'm gonna 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 this year. And the chair of the AI caucus in the house, Representative Delaney, who will be available for us to help answer a number of technical questions as well. And I this is a 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 on some light and 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 leader and 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. 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 gonna allow us to make. Senator Moroney 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 in delivering food, in 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 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 pack 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 and 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. 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 are defined throughout this bill, and that's where that robust conversation with other people will happen because I'm gonna sit down and 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 senate, who's been a thought leader across the country, has led 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 the continued innovation and positive attributes that AI will bring. So madam speaker, with that, I move adoption.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you very much, representative. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And, thank you to the good chairman for for bringing up the bill. So this might be an unusual situation here. The 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 worrying they use, and some of the things we're trying to regulate that sometimes we get up here, and I'm 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 and do and, sort of bend the curve for our will. Right? I mean, 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 and industry. So with that, madam speaker, we just I'm gonna 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 I hope that the chamber finds it informative. So with that, I'll I'll begin through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Absolutely. And will the chair and vice chair please ready themselves? You may continue, representative.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, in section one, it basically talks about subscription disclosures, which is the consumer protection part about the bill. Can the proponent please explain what qual qualifies as quantitative or qualitative limitation? Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: you, madam speaker. Mic is on. So, madam speaker, this section one is dealing with individuals who subscribe to a particular AI platform. I'm just gonna use ChatGBT 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 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 GBT 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 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So madam speaker, I have to understand that the through their disclosure, I would imagine when you sign up for a subscription model, it doesn't mean you have unlimited access to the CHAF GBT or to the AI model. They can limit you either end of that spectrum that we just talked about through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Cherco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Retigaliano.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you,

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: madam speaker. Madam speaker, the bill before us gives the 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Let's find out. Representative Cherco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, madam speaker, that is for all individuals that subscribe to a platform. Any platform you're using, if let's say, a cell phone. Right? If you have a cell phone plan that doesn't have unlimited minutes, you have a thousand minutes a month, you reach that thousand minutes midway through that month, you might restart 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Cherco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, madam speaker, solely by the attorney general under our cup to loss.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. It is also does this provision of the bill apply to free tier AI, or is it just a subscription model through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Just a subscription model through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Retigoliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, section two 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?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Let's

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: see. Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: 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, dev dev separates shows the difference between a frontier developer and a large frontier developer. And then the specific definitions in the bill, if the ranking member, you know, 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 know, you're talking about your and 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, you know, large platforms and super large platforms like your Gemini, like your ChatGBT that have millions of people using them and have millions of revenue coming in through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Regigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Oddly enough, that's exactly how I took it. I I thought he was telling me I had a fourth grade. It's not the first time it's been said, probably.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: So I'll give you sixth grade, at least.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: 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. And 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Cherco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you madam speaker, as as far as my knowledge, we do not have companies of this size operating in Connecticut currently, that our developers of AI and emerging technologies have fallen to this law. However, as the chair of general law said when in his opening, AI is rapidly growing. This is the wave of the future. And I'm sure we're gonna 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, you know, millions of dollars. I think it's almost a billion dollars Right. Of, property damage, things like that. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And, and thank you to the good, vice chair of general law. It does say that this section applies to companies with a catastrophic risks with very specific thresholds. I believe it's fifty deaths or a 1,000,000,000 in property damage. What happens if the something falls just below that? I mean, it's an odd thing to say, but what if it's 48 and 900,000,000 through you, madam speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: 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 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 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, you know, very serious, issues. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ricigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, this bill excludes risk from publicly accessible information. Could the good chair, vice chair, what what exactly does that mean through you madam speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco?

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. 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, you know, 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ricigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, just 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 maintain the anonymity of the whistleblower while investigating and reporting on the complaint through you, madam speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Vertigigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: 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 the a civil suit or the Department of Consumer Protection through you, madam speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, madam speaker. Yes. It is enforced, by the attorney general, and it is a thousand dollar, civil penalty through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker, and I appreciate the answers. If we move on to section three, it calls for the DCP and other state agencies to come up with a regulatory sandbox, just for the the edification of the chamber. We use this term sandbox quite a few times. Can we just explain exactly what we mean by sandbox through you, madam speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jerko.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, madam speaker. And I and I believe, the the 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 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 build. But what it says is that a framework will be created, so that an AI development company could, do development, do testing, you know, 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 a really neat thing through you, madam speaker.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Thank

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: you, representative. Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: 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 the plan and there actually being a sandbox through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, madam speaker. And I 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 they have to come up with their recommendations for the plan, not later, DECD, by 01/01/2028. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, when the companies test their products under a 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 they're testing or using that method through you, madam speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Sherco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, madam speaker. Yeah. That's the idea of the DCD putting together the plan. The plan will include how we can allow certain these companies to be in the regulatory sandbox to be 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you,

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: madam speaker. Madam speaker, that section there, the the parts of the bill that the good vice chair and I just covered, I think is part of the, hey, there's gonna be some consumer protection aspects of the bill. But while we're developing and thinking about it, we're gonna allow these companies to keep innovating and growing. So I support the sort of hands off approach, a little 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 wanna keep them out of the state of Connecticut. I think this here even even part of this bill, says that we could get, together with other states, come up with best practices. We're sorted out 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 four, have to do with AI companions and minors. This is a little bit more of a 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 four, it defines an AI company as conversational and human like relationship. So is that you see, this is where I even I get confused. The the AI bot's not actually speaking. Right? This is sort of a typed or written or read conversation through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Cherco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you madam speaker. So this is AI companion chatbots. There are certain types of chatbots. There are exemptions in the bill. For instance, you're talking to the customer service agent and your your bank, you know, for businesses and things like that, that are not being advertised as companions. So certain type of platforms. And I mentioned the example with chat g p t that, 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. The the section defines the AI the AI companion excludes chat by 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 a personal chat, but a business chat through you, for lack of a better, I guess, question. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Cherka.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, madam speaker. You know, the bill tries to spell out in the different subsections under section four, kinda 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 an app a a 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 gonna start ask answering questions on what I should, you know, make my wife for dinner tonight, you know, or what city we should visit visit in Italy. It it doesn't have that capacity. It's gonna stop and say, you know, sorry. Please ask me a question more robotic than human like through madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ricigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, through you, section five requires a disclosure to the user when they're talking to AI. It that they're not human. Right? 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 gonna 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? It seems like an awful lot. But the is that interval 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. 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 needs to, the 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I appreciate the answer. I I think we're gonna go get into age verification a little bit later in the bill. But through you, madam speaker, is there 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, madam speaker, the bill just specifies under 18, there are a set of rules regarding AI companion chatbots and over 18. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ricigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, the the bill prohibits AI companions from mimicking a romantic relationship or stimulating emotional distress, some of the things we we hear about in the news. Who determines whether an AI AI output crosses that line? What and do we actually articulate in the bill what that standard of proof is through you, madam speaker?

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: 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, and through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: 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 chatbots when interacting with children, from not doing these things, and it would just be enforced by the attorney general through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So just to put a period on that part of the 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, chat bots that are saying things they shouldn't have said. So it it 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 is that a content standard, or is the AG the one who's gonna sort of come up with that standard through litigation and enforcement actions through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Oh, good to see you, mister speaker. Yeah. I there thank you, the ranking member, for his question. You know, there are some details within the bill from, lines three seventy one to three ninety one 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister 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 chatbots and these companies are interacting with young people so that they're not encouraging. I I 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. You know, 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, mister 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 it so it has a provision that it could deliver mental health services if a clinical safeguard is safeguards are met. Do we know or does the bill articulate exactly what are those clinical safeguards through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. Yes. So there are platforms that are being designed to, you know, provide information for people that wanna discuss, different, you know, 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 gonna 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And I appreciate the answer. I 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 an AI 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, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (96th, New Haven/East Haven)]: Yeah

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: throughout the country, very, you know, 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 place for Connecticut residents, especially our minors through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, if the operator well, let's start there. When we say operator, we're are we talking? This is where I get bogged down this bill all the time. The operator is the the person the company using the AI model, not the person who developed the AI model. Am I correct through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, mister speaker. So the operator could be the user. It could also be a business that maybe is white labeling or, you know, has embedded a, AI product into the platform that they're providing. So could be both depending on the situation through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: I apologize, mister speaker. Can the ranking member, please repeat his question? Representative Retigliano, please.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: No need to apologize. And and through you, mister speaker, I 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 a 100 times and still I gotta be honest with you. So I hope that's okay with you, sir, and the good vice chair. So I gotta 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 do we have 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 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 efficient, a sufficient age verification is through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Jerko.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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 and the way the miner might interact with the platform, maybe pictures, different technology that is being used now. And and this is rapidly evolving, the technology that exists to be able to determine someone's age with extreme accuracy, actually, without having to, you know, see a birth certificate or something like that. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. It 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 I believe we should, especially in this this arena. So just for clarification through you, mister 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. It for our cup following our cup to laws and the AG has sole authority. However, individuals can have a private right of action if a minor, feels they've been hurt by these companion chatbots. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano. Very good.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I I I hope that satisfies the chamber that we we we are recognizing some of the parameters around, minors, youth using these chatbots 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 section seven 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 wanna clarify with you, the good vice chair. The bill outlines discrimination 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. The characteristics, and so AI basically is following the same rules through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, many companies use a 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 a 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, mister 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 discriminates, you as the business are not held liable in those situations through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano. Thank

[Speaker 0]: you,

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: mister speaker. I think that's an important point. Many small businesses in Connecticut use, third party vendors to sorta 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 physically be in the state of Connecticut through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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. Three, mister speaker. Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister 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 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, mister speaker. So nothing prohibits a business from using some sort of, automated decision or, you know, 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano. Thank you,

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: mister 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 if where somebody's using an AI chatbot just to sort through resumes, not actually in the particular application process through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So, you know, 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 that disclaimer needs to be presented to the actual applicant at that time through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister 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 sixty 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 12/31/2027. So what happens on 01/01/2028? Does that protection completely go away, or does it sort of the grace period just come about in a different manner through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. Because this is a new law and we're dealing with new technology and, you know, 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 the sunset date to allow grace periods is over on 12/31/2027, There are no grace periods offered based on this current language going forward through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister 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, you know, they should be discriminating in the first place. 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, mister speaker, section thirteen and fourteen clarify that using AI is just a little bit of enforcement. I just wanna be clear on how this went. This was a big contention in the bill over the past few years, that if if somebody's using AI in employment decisions, they had to do a bias test with the AI. They had to they had to send it to they just had to test whether it was it 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 bias testing on their AI model, but the bill also says the courts may consider anti bias testing as a mitigating factor. 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: I appreciate that. And, you know, 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. 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative?

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Jericho.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So there are some third party companies that can, provide this service that do the anti bias testing. Or, within certain protocols, internally, a company may do the anti bias testing if they have that capability. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And I think that ends our employment discussion. What it's saying is that you could use AI to do certain 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, something that can be considered. I think it's a reasonable compromise in the bill. I do support that section. I I find it workable. So if we move on to section 15, it talks about synthetic digital content and provenance data. Can we just let's give that a definition because I I gotta be honest with you. I don't even think I remember what it means through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. I'm gonna go back to that fourth grade reading level here. Right? We when we when the bill talks about provenance data, the easiest way to think about it is, let's say, you create an image. Right? You use, one of the AI platforms, Gemini. We'll we'll give someone else a a shout out besides chat GBT here. And I create an image of a of the good looking speaker here, but with a a hair like his younger days when I when I first met him here at the Capitol working together.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: And taller. And taller.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: And taller. And I send that image out to the world. What the provenance 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 gonna be able to know the metadata so that we can see that, you know, representative, the the speaker doesn't have hair anymore. And this is not an accurate picture through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Well No. My buddy. Yeah. My buddy. A representative of a particular No.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: 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 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. You're 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. Yes. The the the language in the bill is saying that use 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker, the bill does suggest a standard that could be used, but they can adapt as technology improves. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano. Thank

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, the bill only applies to providers with over a million monthly subscribers. I'm just I'm guessing this applies to a company there are companies over there that companies out there that this does apply to through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. I think the big names of the different AI platforms that most of us use that I've mentioned today, this applies to 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. So this, provenance data, these images could be manipulated downstream or sorta 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker, it it most likely, depends, if an individual, you know, manipulates this particular image on, one of these, you know, 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Once again, we're finished with the section that sort of talks about images and manipulating things and maybe some sort of, you know, like, 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, mister 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 gonna be overburdensome to current, people operating the state, but it is a it's a beginning to a regulatory environment that probably needs some protection. So the next sections of the bill, mister 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 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 that are gonna offer the academy, or is it available to every state college through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Jerko.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speakers, 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. 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 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And I I appreciate the answer. Section 18 proposes, I guess, exploring. I don't I don't think it mandates a technology court for AI and data privacy disputes. Could can we just go over the rationale for, for this technology court through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turkel.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Thank you, mister 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 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 be 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 a new type of court specific to technology should be created so that it has the expertise to deal with these complicated cases. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, the 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 I was 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, mister speaker? It's okay. Take your time.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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 ten fifty two, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister 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. You know, I know some of the concerns was, you know, we don't want to stifle innovation in the health care industry, especially in the New 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 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, mister speaker, the sections 19 through 31 start talking about workforce development, education, economic strategy. Section 26 requires employers disclose their worn off worn notice. I guess what it's saying is that it's not we have the WARN Act here in Connecticut. If you're gonna lay off more than a 100 people, you have to notify them ahead of time. So does that mirror the WARN Act so it's a it's a 100 or more? Or if your job's being lost just from AI, is that when the notice goes out through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turkel.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: You, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I wrote a lot of notes about sort of has to pertain to the AI Academy and how this is, all gonna go in. There's a little bit about Yukon in there. Yukon gets the 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 to discuss these issues in a regulatory way or discuss these issues employment way, what jobs are available, or how somebody can navigate the workforce. So I'm not gonna ask those. I'm not I'm not gonna go through. I think we've done you've done a good job in forming the chamber about those aspects. There was one part that 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 are there are teachers currently equipped for this? Do they have the educational materials? And are there any professional developments for these teachers? And through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, mister 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 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 gonna 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 at a young age to make sure that artificial intelligence is incorporated in their education. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. That's a 100% correct.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister 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 is there could we explain why if there's a civil lawsuit, a a private right of action, say, you're able to use these verification third party verifications, but the AG is not through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I was just concerned that there was two tracks for evidence. Right? One for a 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Thank thank you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And the last question on this section, and it I the the good vice chair may or may not be able to answer it. But in the bill, it states that a company that materially rep misrepresents information to a verification organization loses the evidentiary benefit. But who who audits the verifiers themselves? So if you are not telling your verification company correct information, you lose your your ability to use them as defense. But who's auditing them through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. It's my understanding the Department of Consumer Protection.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Through you. Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. So once again, we've gone through a section, and this section basically is coming up with a regulatory environment or a redress environment, places where people could go and how regulations are gonna be developed. I think it's a good thing. You know, 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. So I do support this this thing this part of the bill. Section thirty seven and thirty eight really talks about how the state procures and purchases these states. It prohibits AI use in public benefits delivery unless it complies with OPM and DES standards. But my question for you, mister speaker, do those standards exist yet? I I didn't see the bill saying they had to create the standards, but they're supposed to use internal standards, through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, mister 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 should be available to, help with AI development through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister 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 gonna 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 I won't continue in that one. The last part of the bill, is really it's sort of the

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: for the

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: It's basically the the social media bill, for lack of a better term, that's been kicking around the legislature for 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 if this one comes with AI companion safety protocols, some of that's in section five. We talked about that a little bit. It it it does direct chat GBT or I shouldn't say chat BT. AI models. If somebody expresses a risk of suicide or imminent violence, it has to refer them somewhere. Through you, mister speaker, exactly where do they get referred to, through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker, I'm just gonna 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 in certain cases as far as expressing, concerns of self harm, suicide, violence to others. And then for minors, there's even, additional areas such as expressing wanting to illegally, do drugs or alcohol or, or, eating disorder concerns, things like that. When that when there are serious concerns like that, lines, 295 299 specify where the individual needs to be referred, and that does include 988, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. The 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turkel.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: I'm sorry. Can the, good gentleman read through

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: this question?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: I guess let me rephrase. If so the bill requires that if if if somebody is having suicidal ideations or expressions of violence, it it it 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 it, I could just dismiss the notification and 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So at first, they provide, you know, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and, you know, 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 and protocol that it needs to follow to ensure that it takes an individual's claim that they're gonna hurt themselves or someone else serious and provides resources to them through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister 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 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. This, 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 and and 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 Cupta is it's the same enforcement mechanism for children as it is for adults. Do vi do violations in this bill for children have higher penalties than for adults through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. Yes. Violations for minors can allow a a private right of action individual lawsuits through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. If the operator 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turkel.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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, mister

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Schmidt. Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. If a minor enters a false birth date, to clear the bar for, reason does that clear the bar for reasonableness? If there is fraud involved or the the minor figures out how to bypass the system, Does that clear the bar for a reasonable standard? Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. I would only be giving an opinion that perhaps it 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 is a minor. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano. Thank

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: you, mister speaker. And I I appreciate the answer. I understand it. I just wanted to get it on the record that, you know, the the standards aren't absolute. If 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. Right? I guess that was my point. The 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 in have this, feature through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative? Jericho.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you mister speaker. So I believe that there are some AI platforms that already have put some of these measures in 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 them to 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And I appreciate the 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. Bill prohibits covered social media platforms from using personalized algorithm recommendations for minors. We've heard this before. They're basically in layman's term, 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. 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 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, mister 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?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turko.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So the prohibitions on the tech companies being able to use the algorithms to feed the miners, different content to keep them addicted to the platform, that is in the default settings of the platform that a miner 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, and I appreciate the answer. The just so that we all understand that things aren't absolute. Right? The the miner could still use the same platform for direct messaging, subscribe content, or search result without any limit, even the one hour. I guess I guess there's I guess it's really we're only really restricting through you, mister speaker, the algorithmic interaction. They could still do lots of other things on that platform. Am I reading that correctly through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turcom.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker, that is correct. The individual, the user, the minor can search for any content that they want to see, and view, you know, reach communities that they belong to. There's no restrictions on their particular searches as long as it's not obscene or or lewd or not age appropriate. But there is restrictions on what the tech companies can decide they want the miners to see, to protect minors through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Rutigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, sir. The 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. I mean, in some way, are we really sort of taking the the legs out from underneath the parents? If if if the platform doesn't allow them into the account, is this actually enforceable or adjustable through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So the default settings regarding restrictions on notifications, the time of the, the algorithms can be used. That those type of settings that are outlined in here, parents do have access to. The 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, the bill takes effect 01/01/2028, which is quite a long way away, this part of the bill anyway. Do we know why we're delaying the implementation? Mean, given the documented mental health crisis among adolescents and the 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 are we just waiting till the 01/01/2028 implementation? Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco. Yeah.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. I would agree with the good ranking member that that 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 to it. It was decided to give the social media companies some time, to do what they have to do to ensure they can adhere to this. But I will say, mister speaker, because as the good ranking member said, we passed this bill out of the chamber last year, unfortunately, with overwhelming bipartisan support, unfortunately, wasn't taken up by the senate. We are very behind on this 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And I appreciate the answer. I completely agree with the vice chairman. I do think there's a little bit more of a sense of urgency. I think maybe even the 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, our young young young person. The bill states that the platforms must re report annually to the attorney general hours in use by mo 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 gonna 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, section 39, is it intended to apply to payment platforms? You know, platforms that facilitate payments, you know, like Venmo. Is that considered a social media platform? Does this bill apply to that type of platform through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker, no. It does not.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Verteigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I 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 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 18. I'm not really sure. But would these social media restrictions also apply to a dating site through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So I think it's very important that we look at the definition of 19, from lines nineteen forty seven to nineteen fifty three, 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 the definition is 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 a dating site might not, have that, but it could. So I just wanna be careful on that through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Retigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Through you, mister speaker, how about a streaming platform? Is the streaming platform contemplated in this section of the bill? Is it considered a social media site? You know, so like your YouTube where, you know, you're just watching videos, something like that. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: So again, it's very important we look at the specifics of the 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 definition. Of course, they could change their model and then fall under this through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Verteigliano.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister 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, with adults or maybe people who aren't feeling well. So let's be clear. If you're using chatbot and 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 in an odd way. They're always encouraging. So if you give them something bad, it's gonna 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, it allows it allows for AI to flourish. It's even saying that, hey. We're gonna let you regulate yourself. We're just gonna watch you. We're gonna 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. 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 come on the stage, you could actually see an increase in all the strength, stress and anxiety, suicidal ideations, lots of problems that some of these platforms are are having. I believe our the parents, myself included as a parent, need help. We need more tools so that we could sorta get in there, with some technology that maybe we don't understand. So I wanna 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, Lamar 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, mister chairman. I encourage my other colleagues. I hope they found the discussion informative, and I hope they would support it also. And with that, I thank you, mister speaker,

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: and

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: I thank the good vice chair.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative Rutigliano. Will you remark further on the bill as amended, representative Buckby of the 60? You have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: Good afternoon, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Good afternoon.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: I I take some umbrage to the comment of your of your hair follicles like mine earlier in this discussion. But, actually, I'm gonna start with that question, if I may. I have a few questions on the bill, mister speaker.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: So I'm concerned how that 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 So mister speaker, wouldn't that also within AI be considered parody through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So the liability in this section is on the large AI platforms, the large companies, the Gemini, the ChatGPT, that it's somebody puts an image of you on this platform. And as politicians were subject to this. Right? 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, this data, this information. So that if this image then gets sent out to the public, somebody has a way to say, oh, 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Buckley.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I'm I'm just curious how that's done with a a screenshot through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So when you put an image into an AI platform like chat g p t, 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 in information on that image. Now it's gonna include the history of that image. So you know this is a, you know, a doctored image through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Buckley.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I appreciate the the explanation. I I just don't know how that works with a screenshot. If you were to take a copy of what that is. If you can download it, sure. That's exactly the preferences are all there. You can see it where it came from. But as a screenshot, you don't. And 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,

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: how how

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: is the attorney general and with what tools is the attorney general? What what mechanism would be used to regulate the Internet? Because really that's what all of this is through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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 legal system is added expertise. So the attorney general is gonna be bringing in these people who can do this through you. Mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Buckley.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And and I understand the the intent, but I believe that the jurisdiction at this point would truly be fictional. I mean, you're talking about let's say it's a a frontier model that's built in in California. It's built out in San Diego or something. Right? 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 so what the what I got from the good proponent was we're gonna go after the big guys, but somebody else could pop up tomorrow. So I'm curious again. It's it's regulating the Internet, which we've tried to do for years, and we just we can't do. It's well beyond the the borders of Connecticut. So I'm just curious how that works through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turkel.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, mister 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 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 settlements. And, and, you know, has certain abilities to do some of those things. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Buffby.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I think the problem with that is we can see it now on something as simple as an IP address. Right? We wanna say it's Connecticut. The the one thing we can honestly say is technology moves far faster than legislation. We can all agree on that. Terms like that we that we've already heard are gonna be obsolete by the time this bill before the ink tries 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 and looking for someone to talk to. Mister speaker, have have we had any direct conversations with companies like Anthropic, Llama, Google, any of them that they're leading the way with AI to to see what their thoughts are as far as their responsibility in this through you?

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Representative Tarkov.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yeah. Through you, mister speaker, from my understanding, the good senate chair of the general law committee who has become a national expert you know, 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, mister

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Buckley.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I I think the where I'm trying to go with it, and it's great that the good chair was was getting this information and talking to some of the people. If we're gonna move forward with legislation that's actually gonna work, I think first off, the most important piece is, 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 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 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 it does a whole 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, mister speaker. We all wanna protect the kids, but the intention doesn't necessarily provide the good law. And that's what I fear. I think the the next step on this, honestly, mister 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 for everyone. But I think we need some 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 with this trying to regulate the Internet. That's that's tougher to do. Last thing I wanna say about this, and I think they're just compelling discussion to have on this. I don't know if I'm gonna support the bill or not. I I'd like it to have some teeth to it, but I don't know as it can, and it's kinda puts me in a tough spot. So I'm gonna listen to everybody else on this, but just a solid point, mister speaker. All the questions I asked on this were provided by aids by AI today. They know what's wrong with the bill. AI read the bill and told me exactly what the fault the 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 that artificial intelligence, listen to them like we were our constituents, and find the best solution to keep everyone safe with this. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Hoxfield, the seventy eighth, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I rise to make some comments and potentially a question in there through you. Please proceed. Thank you. I wanna start off my remarks with a quote that I'm sure many of you are gonna recognize. As Peter Parker's grandfather said, with great power comes great responsibility. And this Pandora's box, can of worms, whatever you wanna call it, all those expressions

[Rep. Craig Fishbein (90th, Wallingford)]: apply.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: 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 sixty seventh did a good job of, you know, kind of making a case for why this is such an abstract concept to really understand. And, you know, even even used used it to articulate his points to make that point of how powerful it could be and and almost indistinguishable from real intelligence. Well, that's precisely my point. This the 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 there's, you know, new social media platforms coming out each day. Maybe not each day, but all the time. And we've all seen these videos. Videos of cute animals that seem so real, seem so cute, so so lifelike, but they turn out to be AI. Now we may think that that's sort of like a a harmless kind of, you know, example or side effects of, AI and that the the good will eventually outweigh the bad. But it's not. Because what what this really speaks to is a fundamental altering of the way that we perceive reality. If reality will not be distinguishable from the the the 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 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 of this world. That's not a world that I wanna 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 I was watching, flipping through my 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 make making a very thinly veiled threat that nuclear weapons were, gonna 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 and 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 believe that it was real, that a nuclear weapon was, on its way to to hit New York City or, you know, somewhere in the East Coast. Listen, I I am all for individual responsibility and people using their their brains to 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 in this new age of the digital world. As I like to as I've spoken to before, in in previous arguments on another topic, it is not a reasonable thing to expect of of most of us, of the older generations who have no idea what we're even talking about. Some some, you know. There are some individuals that have kept up with with these things. I'm not trying to, you know, make a blanket statement here. And they're they're listen, there's plenty of young folks that are can't can't keep up with all the the with with the evolution of of artificial intelligence, because it's 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 slash millennial is is making this point. If it scares me, it should scare all of you. I do I do have a question, and then I'll make a few more points after that and wrap it up. Just just very simple. I read through the bill through the amended notes, and there's a lot of departments and sort of, you know, bureaucracies being created to, you know, address the, you know, with this bill 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 bill passes, it would cost the taxpayers to implement the the the what this what this bill is trying to do. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Representative Turco. Through you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Representative Hodson.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I don't know if I heard, a a number. Would Is there, like, an actual cost? A number that the good proponent can give me through you? Representative Turco?

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker, I would say in fiscal year twenty seven estimate, without using a calculator and adding all the numbers up, somewhere between a million to 2,000,000. Three, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Hudson.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I I truly appreciate that. And while that number may may sound high, and believe me, I'm all for spending wisely and spending as little as we have to to get the job done. We may find that that could actually be a very small price to pay to accomplish what this bill is looking to accomplish. I I I agree with with 90% of this bill, maybe even a 100 of it. I haven't I read every single page in great detail, but just from what I've what I've read so far, I can't find something I disagree with. This is a complex issue that's gonna require a multi pronged approach. Different agencies and departments working together, maybe some new task forces and groups being formed. This is really, you know, a new frontier. And it sounds funny, you know, that I reference Spider Man and some of these you know, references. But I assure you, you know, sometimes fiction is is 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 the 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 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 correct me if I'm wrong, if anyone has more accurate information on this than 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 in other committees about banning the, you know, the use of TikTok at the state level on 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, you know, a US entity where it's fully under our, you know, purview and and jurisdiction, and we can regulate it. TikTok in China actually does not allow what's known as Internet slop, which is this, you know, I'm I'm gonna be throwing out a bunch of a bunch of new terms here, Gen z terms, that I I, you know, just learned a a few months ago myself. So, you know, feel free to look these things up. But, you know, these things like, you know, Internet slop and brain rot, these are these are real things and it that have a real impact on children. And AI is used to generate these things. This could be, you know, just, you know, 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 of the youth, our youth, our youth, American youth, whether it's in Connecticut, 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 to to produce on 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, you know, 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. Oh, it's the state government that should be regulating this. Oh, it's up to the, the free market will handle it one day. I don't wanna wait for the federal government. I don't wanna wait for the state government. I don't wanna wait for regulators,

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: and I

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: don't wanna 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. 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 this monster that we 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 and things like that in developed countries, quote, unquote, developed. Right? Higher you know, 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative Hochschild. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Zukas of the 89th, you have the floor, ma'am.

[Rep. Moira Rader (98th, Guilford/Branford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I just rise for a couple of questions.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Moira Rader (98th, Guilford/Branford)]: 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, you know, video gaming and sys 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. And I agree with a good representative, with the concern over video games, especially with our 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Duptis.

[Rep. Moira Rader (98th, Guilford/Branford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. So I'm hearing that that would be a no. Thank you, mister 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 other, really, question, and I agree with the good representative from the sixty seventh. 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 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 and want getting these kinds of responses through the chat GPT. So I'm curious if this bill will help in any of that through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turkel.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So first, when a minor is using these AI companion chatbots and expresses that maybe they wanna do some self harm or harm someone else or they wanna do illegal drugs or, you know, and, you know, 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, you know, different, mental health referrals and services. So so stop from helping, put some resources out there. It does not notify the police or anything, like that, at this time through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Zepkus.

[Rep. Moira Rader (98th, Guilford/Branford)]: Thank you, mister 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So this platform cannot be any AI platform that doesn't apply with the 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 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, mister

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Zepkis.

[Rep. Moira Rader (98th, Guilford/Branford)]: Thank you, mister 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. You know? 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? And it was like, oh, yeah. It's me. You know, I'm just trying to raise some money. And finally, he said, I literally had my credit card out. And he said, I was gonna make a donation, but I said, you know, 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 gonna there's gonna 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 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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, mister

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: speaker. Representative Zepkis.

[Rep. Moira Rader (98th, Guilford/Branford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And, mister 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 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 wanna call it, and it moves much faster than we are at any rate. So I do believe that the feds and I and I am sure when this court plays out this this lawsuit against Sam Altman and AI, there are gonna be some very hopefully, some significant changes to how this is gonna operate. So, thank you, and I thank the good representative for answering my questions.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Corpus of the 1 49th, you have the floor, ma'am.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Thank you, mister 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, kinda 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 a young teenager right now, like a 14 year old, who would still be a minor on 01/01/2028 when this bill that part of this part of the bill comes into effect. So, my son fills fits into this category. So he's on Instagram right now. On January 1, will something pop up 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Torpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: 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. Three, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Three, mister speaker. Yes. Representative Corpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Thank you. And so, I think, the rep sub kiss asked this, and I think I heard the answer. But is that restriction, say the parent does, doesn't opt out, so now the algorithm is restricted to an 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 does that flip in and on in and out when you cross the border? Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Durko.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. Again, the 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, you know, keep that standard. But they have that discretion if they do not wanna adhere outside of Connecticut. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Corpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Okay. So if you go on, you know, like a family road trip and you drive through five states, we 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco. Through

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: you, mister speaker. Yes. And that is already what's happening because there hasn't been any federal regulation in this area. Many states have already can any get us 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 worry about, reducing at any levels. But they do have discretion on how they handle that through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Corbus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Thank you. That was very helpful. The other topic I was concerned about is, you know, 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. So this seems to say that, it 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turkel.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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 of this development they wanna do. There'll still be certain pro call 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 gonna do that. So in that plan, that's all gonna be specified, through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Corpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: And are the companies that can, opt in to the sandbox, are those companies of any and every size from start ups to the the big cap companies to you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turkle.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. Again, the 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Representative Porpoise.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Thank you. I guess 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 an 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 give me his feedback on that question through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So so that's why this plan is carefully being, thought out. And it's gonna take, you know, 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 wanna be able to complete, compete against other states and globally in the AI development and take advantage of, you know, 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, mister

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: speaker. Representative Corpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: I, I understand that. Thank you. I guess I feel that, you know, we're a small state with not that many natural resources, and we don't have a very well developed, you know, 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 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Carpino of the thirty second, you have the floor, ma'am.

[Rep. Christie Carpino (32nd, Cromwell/Portland)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I have a question for the proponent of the bill and just a few comments.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Christie Carpino (32nd, Cromwell/Portland)]: Might the good proponent of the bill be familiar with the movie War Games through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: I don't know. Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. Matthew Broderick? Yes. I'm very familiar.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Three. Representative Carpino.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Christie Carpino (32nd, Cromwell/Portland)]: And I thank the good proponent for not making me date 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. 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, mister 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 gonna help our businesses move ahead. It's not gonna 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 proponents, the good chair and the ranking members, 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.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: And And

[Rep. Christie Carpino (32nd, Cromwell/Portland)]: 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, mister 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. Mister speaker, thank you for the opportunity. I stand in support of this. I'll be proudly casting my vote as a yes. Thank you, sir.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Reyes of the 75th, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr. (75th, Waterbury) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, mister speaker. Good afternoon. Just a few questions for the proponent, please.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr. (75th, Waterbury) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, sir. Like many of my colleagues in here that have already mentioned, I consider myself a a complete dinosaur when it comes to AI. Computers learning was forced on me. I'm a child of the seventies. So I I would agree with the statements that's made here this afternoon that AI is already upon us. And I could tell by the way my grandchildren interact with me and AI. So as I said, in that respect, I'm a 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, mister speaker is because at at the rate that AI changes, what we're regulating today will probably be obsolete by the end of this year. Just so we'd like to hear a few comments from the proponent through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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 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. We can 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 gonna 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Reyes. Thank you,

[Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr. (75th, Waterbury) — Deputy Speaker]: mister 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 youth. How can we guarantee that what we're doing is I'm not gonna say it's the correcting, but it's are we are we looking at this from a protection for the youth? And what ages are we considering youth? Through you. Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. So, you know, 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 psychiatrist to understand Mhmm. 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 in our legislation to add new protections as well. Through you, mister speaker. Representative Reyes.

[Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr. (75th, Waterbury) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, mister 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

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Jericho.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Yes. Through you, mister 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, and opportunity. I hope I got that right. Also has been in involved and testified in support of legislation. So it it's likely something that will need to be an ongoing conversation, but that conversation is at least started. Three, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Reyes.

[Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr. (75th, Waterbury) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative Reyes. Will your remark further on the bill as amended representative O'Day of the January? You have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. Just a a couple quick questions through you, if I may.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: I'm wondering I'm concerned look. AI frankly petrifies me. I I think the world is gonna 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 that's gonna 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. But my my guess 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 four twelve through four twenty seven. My question result you know, let's say I wanna I wanna be a there's an open ad for neurosurgeon at Hartford Hospital. And Tom O'Dei, non neurosurgeon, but I apply because it pays $400 a year. Like I like a raise? I wanna be a neurosurgeon. So I throw in my resume at Hartford Hospital. And Hartford Hospital, a 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 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. I find out that they used AI to call out the non neurosurgeons. Well, do I have a a claim with CHRO through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: you. Representative O'Day.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Fair enough. So so our 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 a being a protected class. Is that how I understand the good proponent through you, mister speaker? Representative Turkel.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative O'Day.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Thank you for that response. So, my daughter's a recruiter in the city. She works for a a a a 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 gonna have AI. Do they have the math capability? Do they have the, intellectual acumen for this particular job? As long do I understand the good proponents' responses? As long as they disclose that AI is used in this first round to assess whether or not the person is 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. Yes. Representative O'Day.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Alright. Thank you very much, mister speaker. And thank you to the good proponent for those responses. I've been listening to the debate all all morning and afternoon. And I was on the fence on this. I am petrified of AI, but I also don't wanna see us stepping into a realm of regulation when we're gonna adversely impact our local businesses or state businesses when 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. Right? So I'm very apprehensive on that score. But, you know, we 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative O'Dea. You really remarked further on the bill as amended representative Rosario of the January. You have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Christopher Rosario (128th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Speaker]: Good afternoon, mister speaker. I rise in strong support of this bill as amended. You know, as someone who considers himself, myself, a Gen Xer, someone who was a teenager during the dawn of the Internet in the nineties, 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 gonna be continued I strong urge my colleagues to adopt it. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Willie remarked further on the bill as amended, representative Haynes of the thirty fourth? You have the floor, ma'am.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Just a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: Through you, mister 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 any anything in this bill that will help our seniors not be

[Rep. John Piscopo (76th, Thomaston/Burlington/Harwinton) — possible brief interjection]: Scammed.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: Scammed. That's the good word. Thank you, mister speaker. I appreciate your help.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Sure thing. Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker, I believe there's gonna be legislation that we're gonna take up later today that's gonna 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, you know, is expressing a mental health crisis and providing some information from that for them and not encouraging it. There's also the Connecticut AI Academy, which Charter Oak College is gonna 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Haynes.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And I appreciate that answer. The at one point, you were talking about or the proponent was talking about notifications that would come in if you were younger than a certain age, it would be every hour. And it was over an age, it would be every three hours. You know, maybe we need to add something in there on the senior side to say, if you go back over 70, you might wanna do every hour and a half or whatever. But something like that could be added, to remind people that I mean, I know after twenty minutes in the, I go mindless on a on a Internet too. So, that those reminders or those bots or whatever they're called, you know, if they show up, it might be a good thing. My second question through you, mister speaker, is in regards to the computer classes that they're requiring in the high schools. I wanna 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?

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Representative Turco. Through you, mister speaker, it is a course that's required to be offered in in high schools. Yes. And now with this legislation, it will expand to have to also teach about artificial intelligence Three, mister speaker.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Representative Haynes.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: 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?

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister speaker. I I don't know if there's already through our state department of education curriculum, you know, 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, mister

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Haynes.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: Okay. So through you, mister speaker, just so that I'm clear, this legislation will not only require AR education of our students, but also require additional I forget what the word is, but the for the teachers to do, you know, professional development. Professional development, they're gonna be required to do professional development for the AI as well. That through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Jerkow.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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, mister

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Representative Haynes.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: Thank you, mister 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, and AI is just the next development. Is that not true through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Turco.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister 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 in which includes artificial intelligence. That's the new part. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Haynes.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: 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 gonna have to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Delaney of the hundred and forty fourth, let's take us home.

[Rep. Hubert Delany (144th, Stamford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And before I give my comments,

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: there are

[Rep. Hubert Delany (144th, Stamford)]: a few thank yous that are owed to senator James Maroney, to doctor Dean Aldarucci, to mister Steven Nichols, to miss Betsy Frankelino, to chairman Lamar, vice chairman Turco, to ranking member Retigliano, the entirety of the general law committee, the entirety of the Connecticut artificial intelligence caucus, and too many people to name here today, I wanna 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 CARD 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 present of AI. As has been stated, this legislation has been the byproduct of years of hard work. It's 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? 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 nineties, 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. And this bill, the CARD 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 Card Act. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Lamar of the 96th, do you have the floor, sir?

[Rep. Roland Lemar (96th, New Haven/East Haven)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I would be remiss again if I did not mention the outstanding work of my senate co chair, Senator Maroney, who's emerged as a national leader on AI issues, and 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 and knowledge and expertise on these issues, and finally get a bill across the finish line. We have the opportunity to lead, not follow, on 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. Mister speaker, the bill before us does exactly that. It hits that balance perfectly. We'll be in this space. We'll be talking 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you. All staff and guests, please come to the well of the house. Members, take your seats. Head to your portals. The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Have all the members voted?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Chair?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Have all the members voted? Yes. 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.

[Rep. Jack Fazzino (83rd, Berlin/Meriden)]: Yeah. Somehow.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: And the clerk will take a tally. And the clerk please announce the tally.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Senate bill five eight concurrence with the senate as amended by senate a. Total number voting, one

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: forty

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: She chose the senate. Totes the senate.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Total number voting, one forty eight. Necessary passes, 75. Those who voted eight, one thirty one. Those voted eight seventeen absent, I'm voting three.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: The bill passes in concurrence with the senate. Are there any announcements or introductions? Representative Howard of the forty third, for what purpose do you rise?

[Rep. Greg Howard (43rd, Stonington/North Stonington)]: Thank you, mister speaker, and good afternoon. Just briefly, I would like to introduce, Desonton High School has a, a curriculum where students seniors who wanna graduate have to do fifteen hours of a senior project with somebody to feel that interest them. Standing next to me is Finn Meadows, a senior at Sawington 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. Fin has

[Rep. Christopher Rosario (128th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Speaker]: been up here up here for a couple

[Rep. Greg Howard (43rd, Stonington/North Stonington)]: 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 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Congratulations and welcome. Are there any other announcements or introductions? Rep? Three, I guess not.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Will the

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: clerk please call calendar 316.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 22, calendar three one six, house bill number 5491, an act concerning centralization of workforce development information. Free report of labor.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Sanchez of the twenty fourth, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Manny Sanchez (24th, New Britain)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report, passage of the bill. Right.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Sanchez, you have the floor.

[Rep. Manny Sanchez (24th, New Britain)]: Mister speaker, the clerk has an amendment LCO five four nine one. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call? No.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It's not the right amendment. He didn't call it right. It's not on the system. Wrong number. Wrong number.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the chamber stand at ease?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: 5 or eight zero.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Okay. Will the chamber come back to order? Representative Sanchez, take two.

[Rep. Manny Sanchez (24th, New Britain)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I apologize for that. Mister speaker, the clerk has an amendment LCO five four eight zero. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and that'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call LCO 5480, which will be designated house

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: amendment

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: amendment schedule a, LCO number five four eight zero offered by representative Sanchez, representative Carpino.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection, representative Sanchez, you may proceed with the summarization.

[Rep. Manny Sanchez (24th, New Britain)]: Thank you, mister 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 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 the 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 shall, on the semiannual 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 car Carpino for her hard work on this. I move adoption.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is adoption of house amendment schedule a. Will we remark on the amendment? Representative Weir of the fifty fifth, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And this is a, an item that came through the Labor Committee unanimously, with, 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. That's a good bill. Ought to pass. Thank you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Is your objection to a voice vote on this amendment? Hearing none, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. Nay. The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. I'm sorry. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff against

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: relevant to his colleagues.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Oh, there she is. Representative Carpino of the thirty second. You have the floor, ma'am.

[Rep. Christie Carpino (32nd, Cromwell/Portland)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I I do really wanna thank the 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 are 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. And so 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 in 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 gonna have a big impact, and it's gonna make it much easier to centralize all of what we already do. Thank you, sir.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will staff and guests please come to the well of the house? Members take your seats. Head to the portal. Machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Have all the members voted? If 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

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: locked. Well

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: And the

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: clerk take tally.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five four nine one as amended by house eight. Total voting one forty six. Necessary, pass 74. Those voting eight one forty six. Those voting eight zero. Absent not voting five.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: The bill is amended, passes. Okay.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Will the

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: clerk please call 354.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 26, calendar three five four, hospital number 5432. An act concerning their seat of fees by a party to a civil action affecting title to real property. Favor report

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: of judiciary. Representative Pizzino of the 83rd, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Jack Fazzino (83rd, Berlin/Meriden)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber's acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Pizzino, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Jack Fazzino (83rd, Berlin/Meriden)]: Thank you, mister chair. As I take this out, mister speaker, excuse me. As I 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, are have when you have an action where the real prop where title to real property is in dispute, typically you gotta get a title search. Whether that's foreclosure of liens, whether that's a title dispute, whether that's condemnation, you always gotta get a title search. And right now, under the current statutory framework, it's capped at $225. Title searchers gotta eat too. Unfortunately, the cost of everything is going up and this bill takes that into account for situations where you gotta get a title search on property. So good bill. Solves a real problem. I urge passage.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will you remark further on the bill, representative Fishbein, with the pink plays going on in the 90th District.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: You have

[Rep. Craig Fishbein (90th, Wallingford)]: the floor, sir. Thank you, mister speaker. Mister 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 all over the state, doing title searches. I've gotten pretty good at at doing title searches. But, you know, sometimes doing a title search, you'll spend an entire day sitting in the vault, going through volumes and books and microfiche in some in some places and all that stuff. And, you know, our statue right now doesn't compensate those individuals for doing that very important, but sometimes laborious work. That's all this statue this, proposed legislation before us does. And I do rise in support. I ask my colleagues in support as well. Thank you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by role of members of the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll members to the chamber.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: This man is sure dead.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please announce the tally?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five four three two. Total number one forty seven, necessary for pass of 74. Those voting a one forty seven. Those voting a zero. Epstein's voting four. The bill passes.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: And will the clerk please call calendar three one nine?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page 23, calendar three one nine. Subsequent for house bill number five five two three, an act concerning a tribal wildlife and fisheries advisory council. Being reported environment.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Baumgartner of the 41st, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Baumgartner, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, the clerk has an amendment LCO number five two nine five. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call LCO 5295, which will be designated house amendment schedule a.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, LC number five two nine five offered by representative Baumgartner, representative Parker, et al.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Seats leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection, representative Baumgartner, you may proceed with your summarization.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister 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 tribe 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 eco ecological knowledge and stewardship practices can help inform how we manage our natural resources moving forward. 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 aquacultural 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber's adoption of house amendment schedule a. Will you remark on the amendment to representative Callahan of the one hundred and eighth? You have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Patrick Callahan (108th, New Fairfield/Sherman/Danbury)]: Thank you, mister 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended representative Callahan of the hundred and eighth?

[Rep. Patrick Callahan (108th, New Fairfield/Sherman/Danbury)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Just a couple of questions for the proponent, please.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Patrick Callahan (108th, New Fairfield/Sherman/Danbury)]: Thank you. Through you, mister speaker, is, will this affect any federally matching funds for fisheries and other, wildlife, funding operations in Connecticut through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Baumgartner.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Through you, mister speaker. No. It does not. In fact, section five I'm sorry. Section three 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Callaghan.

[Rep. Patrick Callahan (108th, New Fairfield/Sherman/Danbury)]: Thank you, mister 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 what the byproduct of this is 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 conservationists and hunters, recreational hunters who put food on their table. Instead of going to the store, they they hunt and they have this great new agreement and a great new conservation group. So this 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Master Francesco of the 80th District, you have the floor, ma'am. Thank

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Just a couple of quick, questions for clarification to the proponent of the bill, if I may.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Please proceed.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you. Through you, this is a new advisory council. Am I understanding that correctly through you?

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Representative Baumgartner. Through you, mister 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, Scatticoques, as well as the Golden Hill Pagussetts. 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, outdoorsmen, outdoors people in in our estate. 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 good ranking member has mentioned, this process has already created an environment where this this engagement is happening. These discussions are happening. As the good ranking member stated, Mashantucket Pequots and the Mohicans already meeting with the Connecticut sportsmen already about programming with youth. So this is what 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 a a bow, to fish. This is foundational to our state and certainly to the sovereignty of our our tribal our respective tribal nations here in in Connecticut. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Master Francesco.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Thank you for that. And so is the advisory council's focus only on tribal land through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Baumgartner.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Through you, mister speaker, no. Explicitly not on tribal land. This is specific to land outside of tribal land. So state lands, so that, as well as state waters. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Master Francesco.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And then the other question I have is a physical note. The members of this advisory council are not paid as volunteer work. Is that correct for you?

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Representative Baumgartner. Through you, mister speaker, that is correct. Representative Master Francesco.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you. And I'm just looking at the fiscal note here, and I'm wondering currently right now, there is a fee for phishing license. Correct? But in here, it says it requires Deepakrish 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Baumgartner.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Yes. Through you, mister speaker. The so the model that we're creating specifically for licensing, for example, licensing fishing and hunting licenses will be issued at no cost once at at purchase. Endorsements, stamps, so for example, like a turkey stamp, deer permit, all of those, endorsements will be done through a reimbursement model where the actual, the tribal member will per purchase that endorsement or stamp. And then through the funding mechanism as outlined in this amendment, would be covered. So I I I do hope I've answered that question directly, and if not, happy to entertain a follow-up.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mastrafrencesco.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you. Not 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 else would have to pay for that. Is that still the case through you?

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Representative Baumgartner. Through you, mister speaker, for most individuals who all, possess a fishing or hunting license in the state, yes, absent of seniors. Here in Connecticut, seniors, are issued free free, licenses. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Master Francesco.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you. Thank you. I I kinda got a half an answer. I'm just really curious why if you are not enrolled as a member of a federally or state recognized tribe, that you do not have to pay for a fishing or a hunting permit, and everyone else does. I get 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. You know, we've been trying to 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, we are you know, 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, mister speaker, through you.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Representative Baumgartner. Well, through you, mister 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, foundational to their sovereignty is the right, to fish and hunt on these lands. And I think that is something that we we can all recognize. Right? Especially, you know, I'm someone, as as I mentioned, represent Grottnestek in Stonington in Southeastern Connecticut where the tribal many of those tribal nations set up, set their have their villages thousands of years, before, again, our country. Right? We're celebrating the semi quincentennial this year, February, before our country, began. So again, this is a a a good faith, I think, commitment to our, 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Master Francesco.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, mister speaker. So so they have a a a right to hunt on their their land, but I'm talking about our you know, it's outside of the tribe. Do currently, right now, if somebody was enrolled prior to this bill being passed, if they were not if they were enrolled in a tribal what does it say here? A 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?

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Representative Baumgartner. Through you, mister speaker. That is correct. Additionally, in section four, 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. Right? And we're talking sovereign tribal land. And so I I I I just wanted to illustrate that because even kind of to, sort of with your question, also speaking to the existing structure that for their lands, they're already paying the state. And I and I think that that shows that, you know, again, they have sovereignty. Right? We we have agreements, many agreements with the tribes. Again, that go back, hundreds of years. But I 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, mister speaker. Representative Master Francesco.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, mister 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 kind of 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 the whether they're in a tribe or not. And I think that's where my sticking point is. Everybody in this state contributes to our town or 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 I thank you for the dialogue. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy 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.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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 Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five five two three submitted by house eight. Total no voting one forty seven necessary passes 74 of those voting eight. One forty four of those voting eight. Three absent not voting four.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: The bill is amended, passes. Will the clerk please call calendar 351.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page 26, calendar three five one, substitute 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 from a synthetically created intimate image. Fair report of judiciary.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Staff Sherman with the hundred and twenty ninth, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Steven Stafstrom (129th, Bridgeport) — Judiciary Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's state report and passage of the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Stasthrom, you have the floor.

[Rep. Steven Stafstrom (129th, Bridgeport) — Judiciary Chair]: Mister speaker, the clerk has an amendment. It's LCO four five four four. I ask it be called and be granted leave to summarize.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call LCO four five four four, which will be designated house amendment schedule a.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, LCO number 4544 represent offered by representative Staffs from Senator Whitfield, representative Fishbein, and senator Kissel.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Sextle's lead with the chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection, Representative Stavstrom, you have the floor to proceed.

[Rep. Steven Stafstrom (129th, Bridgeport) — Judiciary Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I guess it is, artificial intelligence day here in the House of 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, mister 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 disseminated dissemination of AI generated nonconsensual intimate images, sometimes commonly referred to as deep fake 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 wanna thank, certainly the office of the attorney general for their work on this bill, as well as the bipartisan leadership of the judiciary committee including and especially representative Fishbein for working so diligently on the amendment. I move adoption.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule a. Will will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Fishbein to the ninetieth, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Craig Fishbein (90th, Wallingford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Is there objection to a voice vote on the amendment? Hearing none, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

[Rep. Craig Fishbein (90th, Wallingford)]: Aye.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended, representative Fishbein?

[Rep. Craig Fishbein (90th, Wallingford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. You know, this is Connecticut's version of the Take It Down Act. The Take It Down Act was actually signed 05/19/2025 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. You know, we see manipulated photographs almost every day on the Internet. Sometimes they're funny, you know, somebody's got a long nose, something like that, you know, some facial expression, you know, 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 themselves. 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 allow for we 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. 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 a take it down act. And I ask my colleagues to support. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy 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.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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 Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five three one two is amended by house eight. Total of voting one forty eight. Nest server passes 75. Those voting a one forty eight. Those voting a zero. Absent on voting, three.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: The bill is amended, passes. Will the clerk please call calendar 163.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page 11, calendar one six three, substitute house bill number 5362. An act implementing the recommendations of the majority leaders round table. Fair report of

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: housing. You don't you don't wanna know.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe of the 100, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Felipe, you have the floor.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. The clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO five four three two. I ask the clerk can call the amendment, and I'll be given leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call LCO 5432, which will be designated house amendment schedule a?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, LCO number five four three two, offered by representative Rojas, representative Philipi, senator dov, senator Marx.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative seeks to leave the chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection, representative Philipi, you have the floor.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you mister 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 eight thirty g records here in the state. Pushes back some effective dates for some housing 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. Irish adoption.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is adoption of house amendment schedule a. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Scott of the hundred and twelfth? You have the floor, sir.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, mister chair. I'll speak after we pass the voice amendment here. That's totally fine for me.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Hearing no objection to a voice vote, I will try your minds. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Got it. Will you remark further on the bill as amended, representative Scott of the 100 and twelve? You you have the floor, sir.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, mister 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 kinda come up with some ideas that will help affordable housing, but housing in general in the state of Connecticut. And today, we have a bunch of different recommendations that come out of it. There are also what I would think is a couple changes to the previous bill that we passed eight zero zero two 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 leader roundtable. Some of these ideas that we've had to hopefully make it more incentives, and some changes to hopefully help with, with housing across the state. So let's start from the beginning and we'll we'll 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, mister 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. Three, mister speaker, can can the good proponent talk about some of these changes in the hue point either tiers or points that are captured in section one?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Representative Felipe. Thank you, mister 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. Cool. 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 changes to hue points through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott. Thank you,

[Speaker 0]: mister chair. Yes. So so to be clear, this is an addition. These are hue points are being added or in in addition to 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 to middle housing that we that we had had not made a fix to, and that's in section, section one. The moratorium length, I do wanna talk about that. It through you, mister speaker, is the moratorium whenever one would 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 that moratorium, or is it very? And in this bill specifically, what does that do through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. It's always a set length of about four to five years. There was other there were statute that we put in place that had talked about three year moratorium. It's something that we don't do. So we are just clarifying here that it'd be four to five years as our moratorium is. Through you, mister

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: speaker. Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you very much. Section two goes into a 30 g records collection. I'm just trying to understand the intent of this section. I don't recall this being discussed readily readily in the majority leaders round table, but again, I might have not we we talked about a lot of different things. So specifically the records collection, what are the municipalities being asked to to collect and ultimately provide to the state through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. And and this, conversation in the round table, 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 so so DOH has a record of those through you. Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: And then what's the through you, mister speaker, what's the per what is the DOH going to do with that information?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe. I'm

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: I'm not sure of anything that is, you know, 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: That frustrates me a little bit as someone that

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: who you're you're you're gonna put

[Speaker 0]: a burden on every municipality and that goes across every every municipality. Obviously, if there's not an e 30 g application, someone like the town like City of Bridgeport wouldn't have one because they 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 gonna have to provide. And without the purpose of what they're doing and what they're gonna do with it, it just seems like an extra burden that isn't necessarily required. I I I just wanna know, has the DOH opined on this and talked to either testimony or spoke at the majority leaders round table on this topic and any any inclination of what they're gonna try to do or when why they need that through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe. Thank you,

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: mister speaker. I don't think that DOH has given any direct testimony, to this. I do know that in speaking with them either in, you know, side conversations around the round table or, in committee, this is also just a way to make sure that we're 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: And one of the things is also the name of the developer needs to be provided. There's some information. Is there gonna be any personal data that's gonna be provided with this? Is there gonna be, I know we're gonna have a bill later where there might be, you know, you have to have an ID for for landlords. I just wanna know what kind of information specifically does need to be given, as part of this directive in this bill through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe. Through

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: you, mister speaker, I'm not I don't know if I can go through every single piece of information that's given out here. I just and 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Great. Thank you, mister speaker. I appreciate that information. And that does put me at ease a little bit on that idea. I still think it's I would love to know what the DOH is intending and do with information, not just to have it in their pocket, but know what they're doing with it because it's not just an extra stuff for everybody. It's extra for them to collect it, but also the the municipalities to provide it. Okay. I but I appreciate the explanation where we're at. Moving to to section three, there's a push back in dates. Can through you mister speaker, can you explain why the push back in dates of this effective date for zoning through you mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, mister speaker. And then specifically, what is getting pushed back? So, it's going from 06/01/2026, which would be in, like, about a month from now, actually, exactly a month from to now from now, to 06/01/2027. What specifically there was a lot in 08/00/2002, and this is, some requirement that came out of that. What specifically is being pushed back that the municipalities now have an extra year to to abide by or follow through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Representative Felipe. Thank you, mister speaker. These are all of these zoning changes that were included in 8002. So anything in 8002 that affects our zoning statute ace dash two. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: 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 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, mister speaker, that is correct. Parking is included in eight dash two.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Thank you. So again, a a good for the municipality. It's good for everybody to kind like you said, catch their breath. Understand it was only passed in November, giving them a little bit more time than just the seven or seven or eight months, to hopefully try to digest the eight zero zero two, which is fairly large and in in in encompassing, to give them another year to try to address, those drastic changes to the municipalities. We'll jump to section four then. This is one of the ones that I've heard a lot about over the last couple days is this amendment has hit had to hit the system, and people are looking at this. So I do wanna take a little bit of time diving into this little section here, section four. It's talking about middle housing a lot, but it also talks about some, zoning and developments, within, some commercial areas. So online number two twenty one 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 change is with that specifically? There's two tasks that were to happen. It was supposed to be an or. The spouse had to do one or the or the other, and now it's gonna be and. Can you talk to me through that, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. And through you, when we were when we did this originally, obviously, you you have hundreds of pages of of bills trying to figure out how to make everything work. The original intention was to be 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 the things that we talked to people like, you know, Connecticut Conference Municipalities about, the and was something that we felt was necessary to reimplement because it was intended in the first place. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So it was intended in the first place, but it wasn't in the bill eight zero zero two. They came out of 05/00/2002. 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 and may or and and. So I wanna dive into this. So so this section here starts on, line two seventeen. It talks about how developments of transit community middle housing and mixed use developments of two to nine units can be subject to summary view. Through you, mister speaker, what what does summary view mean?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. Summary review is basically an expedited zoning process through you. Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. We've heard the word as of right around here. It's it I might not be exact same meaning, 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 it it can happen without going through a

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: lot of the

[Speaker 0]: rigor of a normal development happens. So in this case, is it is it true through you, mister 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 it says, two to nine dwelling units above. Someone could do that as of right. But also I mean, I'll say summary review and without really any public hearing or planning and zoning review on that through you mister speaker.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Representative Felipe. Thank you, mister speaker. And and 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 is 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, mister speaker. Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Is this for a commercially zoned property or residential zone properties or both through you mister speaker.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Representative Felipe. Thank you mister speaker. This is for commercial and mixed use not for anything that is zoned for purely residential through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. So again, in Main Street, Connecticut town, Monroe, Connecticut, a someone could come in and and and do this. And again, I'm just trying to get back to this word and on line two twenty one. So zoning regulations shall allow for this. So now municipalities misshap shall, so that means they they they have to. Their zoning regulations have to allow for someone to come in and do a transit community middle housing development and mixed use developments. Going back to 08/00/2002, 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 whole lot of text in the last twenty four to forty eight hours on this specific word, about how it does change the does physically change, the idea of what came out of 08/00/2002. 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 this specific word in this specific section because it is a it 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 a 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 there's our real rules that will potentially allow for municipalities to reject these 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 review, something we really need to look at and understand that that was not original intent of 08/00/2002, and now we are changing that after the fact. So, again, I just wanna make it clear on the record this is something that's being, you know, changed and 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 08/00/2002. And 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 mister speaker, there are a couple other sections within or a couple other paragraphs within section four about clarifying clarifying things with middle housing. Is there anything else 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 four through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe. Thank

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: you, mister 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 them the ability to implement some of these changes. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Let's jump to sections five and six. We'll go to the council plan. We're starting on line two forty seven on that. Through you, mister speaker, this talks about the council on housing development. Can can can the good proponent talk about this specific section? What what the Council on Housing Development is going to be doing? Are you in taxed with? Or what changes specifically happening here, in this bill?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: And this was in 08/00/2002 through you, mister speaker? This section previously, mister speaker, was on 08/00/2002?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: That is correct. The section was in 08/00/2002. We're only clarifying that there are no other reasons outside of the statue we provided in 08/00/2002 in which the council can deny an application. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: And can we remind because again, 08/00/2002 was back in November. Can you remind the chamber what changes or what what rights do this, council have to reject a certain plan, if it was presented to them? Through you, mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: 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 no but in no other way. And I also just to be clear on the floor, I wanna thank, my good colleagues to my right for making the suggestion that we clarify this language. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Yeah. We just wanna make yeah. Exact exactly. This was something that was been been discussed as this this council that we built that's new or was new at the time when 08/00/2002 passed and having them make sure they can they make those changes. So just wanna be very clear on that piece. Let's go ahead and jump to section seven. We're moving some language here in section seven. Sorry, let me get to this section here. We're moving some language from around the DOH and and some of the information they're potentially getting. Can can the good proponent talk about what specifically is changing and what specifically the DOH is maybe be not gonna be responsible for anymore through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Representative Felipe. Thank you, mister speaker. We're actually making DOH, more responsible for certain things here. There is a a statute that was put in place a few years ago called affirm affirmatively furthering, 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 exempt DOAs from reporting requirements related to household demographics for their agency services. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, mister speaker. And what specific demographics are we looking to get? Are we getting looking age, race, sex? And what information are they trying to pull out of that information through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: 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 proportion analyze the household serves by race. Yeah. I think income groups and race are the two things that I see here. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, mister speaker. Again, another good thing I think that's in this bill in terms of making sure we're gathering this data. You know, all data is good when we have it, then we just gotta 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 eight in this bill, we're talking now line three twenty six of this amendment. The municipal house housing growth plan is a new plan that was established in in 08/00/2002 that is now taking the lead. It also kinda, in some ways, sometimes, conflicts with some other pieces of of 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. Three, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Representative Felipe. Thank you, mister speaker. I'm gonna 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. Right? We are not mandating municipalities to do this, but a municipality has a locally approved or required plans that they think restrict housing growth, they can ignore those plans in favor of their housing growth plan. But the municipality makes that decision themselves through you, mister

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: speaker. Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. And then even skipping down to the POCD, which is then section 10. Again, we have more conflicts. You know, where does this housing growth plan when you look at 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 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe. Thank you,

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: mister speaker. Sometimes I'll I'll be honest. We I have a 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: So then through you, mister speaker, will there still be a requirement to have the POCD if they're allowing the housing growth plan to super to cede it supersede it? Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, mister speaker, yes. The only thing that supersedes the p the POCD at this point would be, that statute. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Shit. Hey, guys. I just wanna clarify this piece. Is there a requirement for the municipality to submit a POCD, what I think is every five years, it might be ten years. Is there a requirement for that currently? Through you mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you mister speaker that is correct and it is every ten years. Through

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: you. Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: So then if the municipality thank you for that. If the municipal municipality chooses to say the housing growth plan supersedes that, then that is not a requirement anymore for that specific municipality through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, mister speaker, that that is not quite correct. Municipalities must have both plans. However, in in the case that they conflict, the housing growth plan is allowed to supersede the POCD. But they they must both be adopted through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. So we're adding another plan which we knew about before back in November when this passed through. And the things that came out of the POCD that people take every ten 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 wanna proceed, with their municipality on the housing growth plan. Okay. It just seems kind of 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 gonna now still make you go do this plan as a law. It's got something you have to do every ten years. Through you mister speaker, is there is there a plan to eliminate the POCD in the requirements for municipalities on the horizon. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Representative Felipe. Thank you, mister speaker. Through you, I don't know if 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, that 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Hope you're done, Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, mister speaker. Yeah. We talked about the parking piece already before. Section 11 does go into the fix. There was a some quirky terminology that we use in, I believe, 08/00/2002 that kinda left a gap in terms of parking issue and the change that we had. Can you talk to us a little bit about section 11 and how that parking piece has changed? For you, mister speaker. Mister chairman?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. And what this section does basically is when we did the, bill originally, it said 16 or, 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. A piece of the a piece of the bill that we did not like, a lot of people did not like, I voted against it. But, yes, this is truly just a fix of that. You know, so 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 fan big fan of. It is only a 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, mister speaker, the definition change that now we're calling for cottage cluster middle housing?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister chairman?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister 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 because it was meant to be there in the first place. And it's a cottage cluster as defined in section eight dash one a containing not less than four dwelling units but not more than nine dwelling units. Through you, mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Again, just a definition change. Again, not an issue here. It's something that is totally fine and something we should move on with, fairly quickly on. Section 13, religious property, that's gonna happen with the TODs. Through you, mister speaker, you talk about the language change that happens specifically around these religious properties, on the TODs so that we can clarify what the change is specifically in this bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Felipe?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you. And through you, mister 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 deed restricted units at 80% area median income. Through you.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Scott. And then through

[Speaker 0]: you, mister speaker, what was the what was it originally? Was it so it's now it's one third 80%. What was it previously that now is making that change?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Represent mister chairman?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Originally, I think it was a 10060%.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Okay. Scott.

[Speaker 0]: 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 mister speaker?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Philippe?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: They could be market rate. They could be lower. Through you.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Okay. I just wanna make sure it's clear that the rest wasn't still at the other 60. That's I just wanna make clarity on for that. Section 14, majority leaders roundtable disbandment. We're talking about ending the majority leaders roundtable. Sorry, mister majority leader. But it looks like June 30, 2026. Is that correct through you, mister speaker?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Rosanna Felipe?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, mister speaker. That is correct. And before I pass it on, I just wanna say thank you very much to our good majority leader for all the work we've done over the past couple of years. The task force we passed a couple of days ago will probably be the Yeah. The next step in that through you.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Roberta and Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So we'll be 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, mister speaker. We have, a round table appointments. Can can we talk about the, housing development appointments and and how this little tweak has been made now on the on the appointments here through you, mister Mister chairman.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister 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 senate president. Through you.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you. Representative Scott.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. And one more question here on section 16 here. The stormwater and waste management, topic. Can you walk this is not our area this is not our area expertise in the housing committee, but this is in the in the bill. Can you please explain the the the change here that we are talking about with stormwater and stuff like that in this specific section?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Three Mister chairman.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. There were funds that were awarded to COGS. And in the language, they 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Scott?

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, mister speaker. And and that takes us through through the bill for the most part here. And I wanna 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 lot leaders round table and very supportive of. There's a the one section, section four, I do have a little problem with the wording. I I don't love the word changing or to and. I think it's a added requirement for that. I think we're gonna have some other people here who's gonna talk about that specific section on that. But overall, I am supportive of the bill. I am 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. I'll be a part of it and help out with.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, Representative Scott. Representative O'Dea of the Hundred 25th from New Canaan, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Thank you very much, mister 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister chairman, please ready yourself, sir. Thank you.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Thank you, mister speaker. The intent of this legislation in in, 8002 in this, that we passed, initially, when it was an or, specifically, I know that good, ranking of housing went through this, the change of an or to the and. There is still a choice though that the, that can be made as to whether or not we're gonna be using the mixed use or the two to nine dwelling units. Correct? Through you, mister speaker. Sure.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister chairman? Through you,

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: mister speaker. Let me try to make this fun real quick. Just think about having a bag of Skittles. Right? And I say, hey. In a bag of Skittles, you can have red or you can have, purple or you can have orange. Right? It 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 don't you do not need to adopt all three at the same time through you, mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: I don't much like Skittles personally, but appreciate the example. Representative Odette?

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: 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?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister chairman.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you. And through you, mister speaker, just to give miss municipalities the option if they wanted to have all three, they could. But you are not required to have all three. Through you.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Woodet?

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And I don't have any further questions for the good housing chair. You know, I I did have a a good conversation with, the good majority leader. He he gave me a a hearing on my, right of first refusal bill that had a few testimonies in opposition, and 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 8,002. But I am looking forward to if the good residents of the Hundred And 25th do 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, mister speaker, I will say, eight thirty g has not worked in New Canaan, in particular or Darien because what ultimately happens in a good ranking or 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 eight thirty gs. So but the right of first refusal, my legislation that I proposed and 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 the leaders on the other side of the aisle to get that going next year. Thank you very much, mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, representative O'Dea Rosenavalli. Brandon of the second from Bethel.

[Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan (2nd, Bethel/Redding/parts)]: Thank you mister speaker. Not to Bill Aber, the good chair, but I just have a few questions, about the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Please ready yourself mister chairman. He seems ready.

[Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan (2nd, Bethel/Redding/parts)]: Thank you mister speaker. Through you, under this change in section four, would municipalities still have the authority to require, ground floor commercial or retail space as part of develops as part of developments in commercially zoned areas?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, through you, yes.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Thank you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ali Brennan.

[Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan (2nd, Bethel/Redding/parts)]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you madam speaker, that is not my interpretation of the bill in front of us.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ali Brennan.

[Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan (2nd, Bethel/Redding/parts)]: Thank you madam speaker. And I appreciate the work that's gone into this bill. You know, 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Corpus of the Hundred And 49th District, you have the floor.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Just to belabor that one word in the bill that everyone's been talking about. So and and thank you for explaining it by way of example to the good chair. So does that mean so 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 AND mixed use developments on its main streets. That so what 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: That is my understanding. They're not required to do both of those, but they can't. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Corpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: That's the way I understand it. Through you through you madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Corpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Okay. Because, the worry here is that it's been stated before. I think that the worry has been well articulated. But I 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 three forty three to three forty eight 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: That is correct, through you, madam speaker.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Representative Corpus. 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: That is correct, madam speaker. But I would note that here, it only allows your municipal planning commission to 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.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Representative Corpus. Okay. So it is left to the discretion of the towns. But if the town so chose, they could I can't imagine they would but a town could completely disregard the plan of conservation and 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, madam speaker, it 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 planning the rest of the POCD. Through you.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: Representative Corpus. Thank you. It's my recollection from the bill we passed in November that 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 that my is my recollection correct to you, madam speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. And through you, yes. That is correct. That is, sections nine and ten 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Corpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: 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 develop 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. And it's my understanding that the municipalities that are in included in that regional plan must consent municipally to to superseding the POCD. Otherwise, it would still be intact. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Corpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: 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. And if a few of those decide to override their plan of conservation development and others don't, what happens? Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. And for POCD specifically, the the way I see it is that those four towns would be able to override while the other six would not. But it's up to you, municipally, because it's your municipal plan. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Corpus.

[Rep. Rachel Khanna (149th, Greenwich)]: I think that concludes my questions. I have reservations about the bill because the 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the amendment before on the bill as amended? Representative Weir of the 55th District. Okay. Will your Will you remark for them the bill as amended? Representative Dubitsky of the 47th District. You have the floor.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. A few questions for the proponent, if I may.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you. Through you, madam speaker, what is an affordable housing unit?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. It depends on the statute that you're refer referring to. There are many different statutes that have different definitions of affordable housing. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, miss madam speaker. So in this bill, there are multiple definitions for the same defined term. Is that correct? Through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Tabitski.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Through you, why are there multiple definitions for the same defined term? Through you?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Representative Felipe. Once again, madam chair, I I don't mean to be 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 used their definition of affordable housing. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I I'm 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: I madam madam speaker, I don't know if I have a a clear answer. I obviously wasn't here for all these statutes. Some of these are are over forty, fifty years old. It's just kinda how it went over the last couple of decades, and we're trying to make sense of it all through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Is it fair to say that under this 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam chair. That is correct. But I would add to deed restricted, subsidized by public entities, but be it state or municipality through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I apologize. So it's a publicly subsidized low income deed restricted unit. Is that correct? Through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Madam chair, just to clarify, publicly subsidized or deed restricted. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubiski?

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Now the definition of affordable housing unit I 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: That is correct through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubiski.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: No. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, madam speaker, no. They do not get evicted, but because that unit would actually become not be would be no longer referred to as affordable, the next unit that that housing provider puts on the market then must be affordable through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Tabitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: 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 income, and it is con 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: 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 what's deed restricted is the percentage of those units. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubiski.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So that assumes that that unit is within a development of a multifamily a a multi unit development. Aren't some of these affordable units, these low income housing units, standalone houses through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: 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 I was more referring to multifamily. I think you might be correct on on single family. Through you, madam. Madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubisque.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. So we've got a family living in a house, 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

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: plans to move them out of public

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: And they're no longer low income. Is am I missing something? That doesn't sound like a reasonable scenario to me. Is is that in fact a possibility under this bill through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, madam speaker, none of that is contemplate 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 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 housing does not keep people who are at these higher incomes, indefinitely through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky?

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Sounds like an eviction to me. Through you, madam speaker, why does Connecticut need more low income housing through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: It's a fairly broad question. I I would answer because we have a housing shortage in the state of Connecticut through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubutsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Under what statistics and what research shows that there is a housing shortage in Connecticut through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: I can give you one off the top of my head. We are, one of the lowest states in building building permits per capita in the last fifteen to twenty five years. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky. Thank

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: you madam speaker. The lowest building permits per capita, how does that establish that there's a housing shortage? Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you madam speaker. Because we continue to have the same population. We've had many people who have had the increased, number of 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Through you madam speaker, how many new low income housing units does do we need in Connecticut?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: That is not contemplated in this bill, but the reason that we are collecting eight thirty g 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubisque.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. I'm aware. I'm not sure what percentage that is. That might be somewhere, South of 5 Percent. That's stagnant to me through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubinsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And is the good proponent aware that, between 2024 and 2025, the state lost another 6,000 residents through through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Madam speaker, don't wanna 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: 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 fourteen thousand 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: That is not contemplated in this bill through you madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: That is correct. That's not contemplated in the bill. That's why I'm asking. Thank

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: you

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, madam speaker, I'm sure there have been. I don't have any of them in front of me, but yes. Through

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: you. Representative DeWiske.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Does the good proponent happen to have any range of what the burden is for each low income housing unit on a on a given town through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you, madam speaker, I would, reflect back on section two. This is why we were collecting a 30 g records to see how many, low income housing units are in each municipality, but, obviously, as has been contemplated whenever we discuss these bills, each municipality is different. Therefore, the impact is different. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And the good proponent indicates that each town is different. So 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through through you, madam speaker, depending on the rate of building, that would most likely be correct.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dabrowski.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you madam speaker. I'm 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 have 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 gonna make everything look the same. 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 when they the look at the cows in the in the bucolic fields, they're going away. This bill and the and the underlying statute that this bill sits

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: on top

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: of are literally destroying the state.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: And

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: 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 this on the original bill. And they all originally and they all started out their testimonies saying how great it was. This low income housing was gonna create incredible job opportunities for everybody, was gonna was gonna generate economic development and and make all these towns and cities, you know, wealthy. And I I remember, like, being baffled and and questioning them on it. And then And then every single one of them 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 their 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 gonna do. We are going down a very slippery slope in my view. This is one of the things that I really think is gonna destroy the character of this state. We're no longer gonna have the diverse unique municipalities that we've had in the past. We're gonna 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. Alright? 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 a 100 units and a third of them are low income and a third of them have artificially low rents, well, then the other two thirds are gonna have artificially high rents to make up for it. That drives up the rent and the 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank Thank you, representative. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Ackard of the eighth District, you have the floor.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (8th, Coventry)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Through you a couple questions to the proponent of the bill as amended.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (8th, Coventry)]: Thank you madam speaker. Just for clarity, right now, we have in our town a a a regulation per se. I'm just kinda looking at section four again and I just see that. I I believe I read that section, maybe as the good chair, is understanding it as well. That is an 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

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: the way the intention of

[Rep. Tim Ackert (8th, Coventry)]: that section reads through you madam speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you madam speaker, yes. That is correct. And just for the record, as we have this conversation, and you read that section, and let 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 make sure that we, clarify legislative intent. And legislative intent is just that. Through you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ackert.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (8th, Coventry)]: Thank you, madam speaker. In my 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 a shop close-up on Main Street. A small shop, nail salon actually closed up. And the and the owner wanted went to the town and said, oh, I would like to make that a apartment. And they said, our regulations don't allow that. So they wanna have that commercial space to kinda have it be a downtown rather than just be a housing area. Through you, madam speaker, does any of this regulation then this document, would that say to my community, you no that no longer is allowed that you can oppose, a apartment from moving on a lower level. And I think we call it like village, village, zone. Through you madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you madam speaker. They have to allow it to be mixed use. So in this case, it would more most likely be 1st Floor commercial, 2nd Floor apartment, not 1st Floor apartment. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Eckert.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (8th, Coventry)]: And that's 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 not that market's just not there, you know, so in an older building. So they said, hey, you are allowed to make that into apartments, 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. Right?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: That is correct through you madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ackard.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (8th, Coventry)]: Thank you. If perchance, a new lot they opened up a lot and a new developer came in and said, hey. I wanna do a how a housing unit there. Even though the village re 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: They'd be able to maintain through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ackard.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (8th, Coventry)]: Thank you. And that was the only pause I had kinda on that section of of if if our local and then, you know, again, we're very rural, so it's not like we have a lot of transit anyways in our community. And just, if the the the good gentleman, the good chair of housing, I did see a lot of opposition by, if if for multiple reasons in testimony. Mostly, looks like from some developers that were actually concerned that we were walking back on 830 G. Were there were there concerns resolved with this amendment? Or is there still concerns that, you know, they they want to have you know, they they wanna have kinda maintained the developers wanna they wanna do this work. You know, so through you, madam speaker, were those concerns taken care of in the document that I have in front of me?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Felipe.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, madam speaker. Those concerns were generally resolved here and some sections were also taken out of the original legislation through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ackard.

[Rep. Tim Ackert (8th, Coventry)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I thank the good gentleman for his answers,

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: and thank you for the time.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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 will of the house? Will the members please take your seats? The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The House of Representatives is voting by a roll. Members to the chair. The House of Representatives is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: I see.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? Already locked it. The the clerk will take the tally, and the clerk will announce the tally.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five five six two is amended by house a, total number 4147. Necessary for passage, 74 of those voting eight. 89 of those voting nine, fifty eight. Absent that, voting four.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The bill as amended passes.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Can you say stand at ease? Your mic's off.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Stand at ease. The chamber will come back. Will the clerk please call calendar number 433?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 33, calendar four three three, substitute for house bill number five four four seven. An act implementing recommendations of the transforming children's behavioral health policy and planning committee and concerning temporary family assistance benefits. We report to appropriations.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Vaxon, you have the floor.

[Rep. Tammy Exum (19th, West Hartford/Avon)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Madam speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The question before the chamber's acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and the passage of the bill. Representative Exum, you have the floor.

[Rep. Tammy Exum (19th, West Hartford/Avon)]: Madam speaker, the clerk has an amendment, LCO five six three eight. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Will the clerk please call LCO five six three eight, which will be designated house amendment schedule a.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, LCO number 5638, offered by representative Walker, senator Austin, and representative Exum.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The representative six leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. And are there objections to summarization? Is there objection? Hearing none. Representative Exum, you may proceed with summarization.

[Rep. Tammy Exum (19th, West Hartford/Avon)]: 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 five zero zero one, which was for children's behavioral health. And, that was our 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The question before the chamber is adoption of house amendment schedule a. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Nucci of the fifty third, you have the floor, please.

[Rep. Tammy Nuccio (53rd, Tolland/Vernon/Willington)]: Madam speaker, I move to, accept the amendment, and then I will talk on the underlying bill, please.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Nuccio, you have the floor.

[Rep. Tammy Nuccio (53rd, Tolland/Vernon/Willington)]: 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, you know, I just would like to say how much I have 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 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Tammy Nuccio (53rd, Tolland/Vernon/Willington)]: Thank you so much. So in the first section of this bill, we're actually creating a work group. Let's see. For on policy that for the treatment of eating disorders. The majority of this bill is all regarding, eating disorders. And this is an exit the 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 gonna be doing, in section one, ma'am, through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ekso.

[Rep. Tammy Exum (19th, West Hartford/Avon)]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Nuncio.

[Rep. Tammy Nuccio (53rd, Tolland/Vernon/Willington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. In section two, 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 I'm not gonna go back 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 health advocate to study the feasibility of an inpatient facility. I believe, you know, we are have a severe shortage of beds, inpatient beds for children who are 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Axel.

[Rep. Tammy Exum (19th, West Hartford/Avon)]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Chiu.

[Rep. Tammy Nuccio (53rd, Tolland/Vernon/Willington)]: 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 gonna be requiring evidence based screening tools for identifying disordered eating behaviors early. And I think that is really important because this is this is something that we're seeing a lot in our youth. And having these these screening tools and having them being evidence based, I think, is gonna help us identify a lot of children earlier than we normally are if they have disordered eating behaviors. So I just I stand in strong support of this of this bill, 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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 will of the house? Will the members please take care of seats? The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members of the chamber.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted? Will the members please check the board to determine if a 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.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five four four seven as amended by house a, total no voting one forty four. Senator passes 73. Those voting a one forty four. Those voting a zero. Absent not voting seven.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The bill as amended passes. And the chamber will stand at ease. The chamber will come back. Will the clerk please call calendar number 459?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 36, senate bill number one five six as amended by senate amendment schedule a l c o thirty six fifty. An act establishing a task force to study the voluntary surrender of infants. Favourite report, committee on children.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative McGee, you have the floor.

[Rep. Treneé McGee (116th, West Haven)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I move for acceptance of joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill in concurrence with the senate.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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 three six five o. Representative McGee, you have the floor.

[Rep. Treneé McGee (116th, West Haven)]: 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 three six five zero. 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 check 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: This chamber will come back to order. Representative Mickey, you may comment on the bill, on the amendment.

[Rep. Treneé McGee (116th, West Haven)]: Madam speaker, this year marks the twenty sixth anniversary of the safe haven voluntary surrendering of infants. And forty eight hours ago, 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Will you remark further on this bill as amended? Representative Daphne of the 44th District.

[Rep. Anne Dauphinais (44th, Killingly/Plainfield)]: Thank you, madam madam speaker. And I I accept the amendment, and I will like to speak on the underlying bill. Or is this the under 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 unborn 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 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 optional for women in the state. And I fully support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. Thank you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will your remark for them this bill as amended? Representative Ackard of the 8th District, you have the floor.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Thank you, madam speaker. Now I wanna thank the good the good proponent of the bill for bringing this task force out because one of the things that we had at the 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 before 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 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative McGee.

[Rep. Treneé McGee (116th, West Haven)]: Through you, madam speaker, can you please repeat the question?

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Absolutely.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Acker, please

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky (85th, Wallingford)]: repeat the question.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: So, you know, what 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 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 this policy through you, madam speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative McGee.

[Rep. Treneé McGee (116th, West Haven)]: Through you, madam speaker, this task force will look into, creating a community awareness campaign rather than marketing a community awareness campaign to, enlighten the community on the safe haven task force through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Ackerman.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: 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 go to, go to the capitol here and do our good work, I have to read about

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: how many people have died

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: on the highways. And my 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 gonna be the way. But we do have a lot of state department of transportation opportunity to promote the good 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 strong support of this. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Paris of the Hundred And 45th District, you have the floor.

[Rep. Corey Paris (145th, Stamford)]: 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. And so I just wanna commend both the senate, cochair of children's, representative McGee, the proponent of the bill, and also our good ranking member for their work on this task force. And I look forward to the findings that they'll come, as they look and seek to update these laws moving forward. I urge I urge all my, colleagues across the aisle on both sides of the aisle, to support this bill. Thank you, ma'am.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Nolan of the 39th District, you have the floor.

[Rep. Anthony Nolan (39th, New London)]: Thank you, madam speaker. And I have a question and a statement,

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: if I may.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Anthony Nolan (39th, New London)]: Through you to the component of the bill, could you share with us, I didn't catch it. What is gonna be the makeup of the task force?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative McGee.

[Rep. Treneé McGee (116th, West Haven)]: 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 there there does have to be more community awareness, around what safe haven laws are. And so, we will ensure that experts are in are in place to, choose more equitable solutions of voluntary surrendering of infants. Through you, Madam Speaker. Representative Nolan.

[Rep. Anthony Nolan (39th, New London)]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The House of Representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Senate bill one fifty six in concurrence with the senate as amended by senate a. Total number one forty four, and that's safe for passage 73. Those voting a one forty four. Those voting a zero, absent voting seven.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The bill passes in concurrence with the senate. We'll up. We'll stand

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: at ease.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Chamber will come back to order. Please call calendar 271.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 18, calendar two seven one, house bill number 534O, an act concerning renewable power generation. Fair reporter of energy and technology.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg of the one thirty sixth.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: He's gonna refuse himself. Stewart does.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Oh, yes. That's me.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Pause. Representative Stewart of the fifty first, for what purpose do you rise?

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Yes, mister speaker. Out of abundance of caution, I ask that I recuse myself for this vote. Understood.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: The chamber will stand at ease.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: I recused myself too.

[Rep. John Piscopo (76th, Thomaston/Burlington/Harwinton) — possible brief interjection]: The chamber will come back

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: to order. Representative Steinberg, please proceed.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Steinberg, you have the floor.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Mister 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 Arcani, who's now a PURA commissioner, in order to set Connecticut on its 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 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 generated over, 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 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 we're 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, due 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 reducing their energy bills and leveraging the, 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. Mister speaker, the the clerk is in possession of an amendment. It's LCO five four five zero. I ask that it be called through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call LCO five four five zero, which will be designated house amendment schedule a.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, LCO number five four five zero offered by representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection, Representative Steinberg, you may proceed with your summarization.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I think I that should best start with a 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 RES. We have a non residential solar program, which are for more commercial type buildings. We have a shared clean energy program, which, as you know 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 a hard budget caps for the NRES and the SCIP program, and not an ARRES. 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 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 have been, we have a fiscal responsibility to rate payers, 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 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 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, twenty four seven 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. Any 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 options to combine their farms with a limited amount of solar energy. And we're going to do a task force looking into that. And then we 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. That 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, it can you can use it on your own or where it can be actually directed back to the grid in times of use to, 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 rate payer 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 cost? 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is adoption of house amendment schedule a. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Mara of the Hundred And 41st, you have the floor, ma'am.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. Since this is a strike all, I will wait for the amendment to become the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Aye. Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. I am sure everybody's getting a little whiplash today with, I think we're gonna be talking about solar. I think we're not gonna 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, mister speaker, could the good chair of energy please tell us what the fiscal analysis is on this bill?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 Sombra pyramiding bill that was taken out. Explicitly, it was to have the, 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister 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, earlier in this session at the beginning 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 rate payer 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 don't think that I I I didn't think that that was being done, but sure enough, it is in language. And 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 85,000,000 a year. I mean, that 85,000,000 doesn't just come at zero cost. Right? Someone's paying for that somewhere. And so, mister speaker, if this if this is passed, this bill will have financial impact on rate payers 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 rate payer impact statement as required by subsection b of section two dash 24 a of our statutes.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Chamber will stand

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: at ease.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara, your point of order was well taken. Would you yield the floor to the majority leader?

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Yes. I will yield the floor. Thank you, mister

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative representative Rojas, the more joining leader from the 9th District.

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. I will we pass this bill temporarily.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: So moved. Will the clerk please call calendar three one one?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 22, calendar three one one, house bill number five four eight two, an act concerning twelve month coverage for contraception and hormone therapy. Favorite report on human services.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Gilchrist of the 18th, you have the floor, ma'am.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Okay. Thank you, mister speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and the passage of the bill. Representative Gilchrist, you have the floor.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. The clerk has an amendment l c o five two zero six. Would ask

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: the clerk to please call

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call 5206, which will be designated house amendment schedule a?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, LCO number five two zero six, offered by representative Gilchrist. Representative seeks leave of

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: the chamber to summarize the amendment. I don't hear any objection. Representative Gilchrist, you may proceed with the summarization.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. This bill strikes one section from the original underlying bill, and what remains is twelve month 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. The amendment's adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Case of the sixty third, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Jay Case (63rd, Winsted/Goshen/Norfolk)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And 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 it take care of some business that we need to do with the state. So I move to option.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by roll of members to the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll of members to the chamber.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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 will the clerk please announce the tally?

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Yeah. Okay. Gotcha. Have that.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five four eight two is amended by house a, total of forty one forty one, necessary for passage 71. Those voting a one twenty nine. Those who are in a 12, absent are voting 10.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: The bill is amended passes. Will the clerk please call calendar three six three.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page 27, calendar three six three, substitute house bill number five five one eight. That concerning the Department of Public Health's recommendations regarding various revisions to the environmental health and drinking water statutes.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Fair report of public health. Representative McCarthy Behney, the one thirty third.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you. Thank you very much. Mister speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorite report and passage of the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative McCarthy Bahee, you have the floor.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much. Mister speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO five six six six. I ask that the amendment be called, and I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call LCO five six six six, which will be designated house amendment schedule a.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, also number five six six six offered by representative McCarthy, Vahey, Senator Anwar.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative leaves take leave seeks leave of the chain to summarize this amendment. Is there objection? Hearing none. Representative McCarthy Behay, you have the floor.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much. Mister speaker, the bill the amendment before us includes, house bill five five one eight, also includes house bill five five one nine. And I'll walk through the sections, briefly, if I may. The first sections of the bill 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 seven of the bill, this regulates the environmental laboratories. Sections eight 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. We have a new category of workforce, new naming of subsurface sewer sewerage enforcement officers. This creates a workforce training pathway and allows us to effectively regulate this along with our, local health districts. Sections 23 twenty two and twenty three address, this new workforce as well, specifies that there will be no separate professional boards for those. And sections twenty four and twenty five 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. Mister 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 what some of the federal references are. And in addition, that allows us, again, to codify what current best practice is. And with that, miss speak mister speaker, I move adoption.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Claire De Dietria of the hundred and fifth. You have the floor, ma'am.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. You know I wanted to talk before I did. Through you, mister speaker, I have a couple of questions to the good chair of the public health committee.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you. And through you, mister speaker, under sections one through six, 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

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: you. Representative McCarthy Behney.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Clarida Stitria.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you. And through you, mister speaker, in section seven, the out of state environmental labs, can you clarify what authority DPH will have on the out of state environmental labs?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative McCarthy Behney.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. Mister speaker, what we wanna 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Claritus Ditria.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you. And the asbestos licensing changes in sections eight through 16, what does this section clarify who may become a licensed does this section clarify who may become a licensed asbestos consultant?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative McCarthy Behave.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. And, yes, it does. It effectively provides what we might refer to in public health as title protection through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Claritus Ditria.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you. And mister speaker, continuing on in the good representative's favorite part of the bill, sections seven and eighteen, a crematorium exception. So through you, mister speaker, can you give us a quick, just to clarify the difference between the alkaline hydrolysis and standard cremation through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative McCarthy Behave, good luck.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you. Thank you very much, mister speaker. Mister speaker, this time, I don't thank the good representative for her question. And I 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. So yes, it might not be my favorite section of the bill. And it is a difficult 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Claritus Ditria.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you for that explanation. We could also say that for ease in our fourth grade level, traditional cremation is like a very hot fire reducing a body quickly, and that alkaline hydrolysis is is speeding up the natural process, by breaking it down in water. And through you, mister speaker, under section 21, under the new certification structure, Can you tell us, will this help with some workforce shortages?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative McCarthy Behney.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. And mister 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 wanna 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Clerius Ditria.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: 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 are, really important sections in this bill. And mister speaker, I urge adoption.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Master Francesco of the eightieth, you have the floor, ma'am.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I just had just a quick question to the proponent of the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Please proceed.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you. You know, we get many bills before us, and every single bill that we've received is a strike all amendment. So, you

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: know, you try to look

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: at the bill analysis to figure out what it is, then you see a strike all amendment. And and I really do the best I can to read every bill. But when I opened up this one for the amendment, I really had a stop at line 52 to the good chairwoman of the committee. If I I was reading it. I I I don't know what I was reading. If she wouldn't mind telling us telling me exactly what that is. And if anybody's curious, go to line 52 of the bill and see if you can read be lines 52 to 57. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative McCarthy Vahy, good luck again.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. And, mister 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 as chairs and ranking members with our experts and leaders in public health. So this is related to PFAS in drinking water. And this references 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Master Francesco.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, mister speaker. So I 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

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: through you? Representative McCarthy Behney.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much, mister 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. PFOS 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 it's 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. And though this, again, is it's it is a difficult bill

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: to read. It's pretty technical,

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: but it's really important that these references that we get it right and we're reflecting proper practice and best practices through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mastro Francesco.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, mister 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will your remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Anderson, the sixty second, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Mark Anderson (62nd, Granby/Barkhamsted/Hartland/Norfolk)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I have a couple questions. Please proceed. Alright. So line seven sixty two to seven sixty six 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?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative McCarthy Behay.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. And mister 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. And, yes, which does include a public process and hearing through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Anderson.

[Rep. Mark Anderson (62nd, Granby/Barkhamsted/Hartland/Norfolk)]: The proponent can 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 terror mation, mister speaker, through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative McCarthy Bahey.

[Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey (133rd, Fairfield) — Public Health Chair]: Thank you very much, mister 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 terra mation. This is a different process. I'm not an expert or, probably going to be able to say much about terra mation, but the alkaline hydrolysis portion of the bill was heard through our committee. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Anderson.

[Rep. Mark Anderson (62nd, Granby/Barkhamsted/Hartland/Norfolk)]: Thank you, mister speaker. No more questions. This this sounds like a process called terraimation 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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. Machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: If all the members voted, will the members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? For all the members that voted, the machine will be locked, and the clerk will take a tally. And will the clerk please announce the tally?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five five one eight is admitted by house a. Total voting one forty two. Necessarily passage, 72 of those voting eight, one thirty two of those voting eight, ten absent voting eight.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: The bill, as I mentioned, passes. Will the clerk please call calendar one nine seven?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 12, calendar one nine seven, substitute house bill number 5373, and that concerning the insurance department's recommendations for revisions to the insurance statutes. Faye reporter insurance.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood of the 29th District, you have the floor, ma'am.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: the bill.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage to the bill. Representative Wood, you have the floor.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. The clerk has LCO five 109. I ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave the chamber to summarize.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call LCO 5109, which will be designated house amendment schedule a.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, LCU number 5109 offered by representative Wood, representative Pamela Camato.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Lee, seeks leave of the chamber to summarize the amendment. Hearing no objection to summarization. Representative Wood, you may proceed with that summarization.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. This is the Connecticut Insurance Department's agency bill. There's a lot of technical changes, a lot of date changes, some saving of money, in n in NAIC model act implementation in here, and lots of other good stuff, and I urge adoption.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is adoption of house amendment schedule a. Will you remark further on the amendment? Representative Pavak Damano of the 77.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I will reserve my comments after the amendment is passed. Thank you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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. Aye. Those opposed, nay. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Pavlak Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Oh, I'm gonna start by asking about we'll start with section one. How about that? What is service of process and what is being changed in this bill for you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. It's when the commissioner delivers a civil action, and we are allowing for electronic delivery. And it's important to know 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlov Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And for everybody in the chamber, I do want to say that I 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 his license to be an insurance agent. And that individual did did not receive notice of it, or he didn't think that he did. I I in this case, and in this situation, an individual is possibly losing their license to make a living, right, as 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 on 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 mail. Therefore, I don't have any concerns, any further concerns with that section. With that being said, let's move on to section two and three. And I believe they go together. So what change is happening in these two sections through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. This sec 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlak Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you for that answer. And is there a fiscal note for these changes through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. There is actually a savings to the Connecticut insurance department between 30 and $40,000 annually through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlok Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And I like savings. Let's move on to section four. It relates to the health and wellness fee. What is being changed here for you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 time lines through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlok Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Section five, looks like we are doing some simple simple date changes. Are there any other major changes in this section through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Yes. Actually, this change this section is also including the office of behavioral health advocate to the insurance fund for assessments through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlok Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Section six. Why are we removing terrorism insurance requirements from common interest ownership communities otherwise known as HOAs or condo associations through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 communities had terrorism insurance coverage. Now those condo associations can decide if they would like that coverage or not through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Tavlak Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And, I can see why maybe terrorism insurance 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, a savings for individuals throughout the state, which is great. Section seven. 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?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister 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, you know, why did that that, you know, increase go up? Well, this gives the insured the ability to understand, that information further through you.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Representative Pavlok Damano.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: I thank you for that answer. Sections eight and nine. This is an important section which provides more transparency to policy holders. I believe it makes technical changes to a provision on settlement amounts to total vehicles by replacing a reference to the National Automobile sorry. Automobile Dealers Association to JD Power's guide. Why is that through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlak Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you. And, again, I 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 ill insured person. I did not know that existed either until recently. What changes are being made in this sec in this section through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: This eliminates the requirement that Viaticle insurers need to provide and maintain this information. Sorry, provide eliminates the annual report requirement. And, why this was done is because that information needs to be provided to the commissioner anyway upon ask through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlak Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you for that explanation. Section 11, we are moving on to formulary changes. What changes have been made here through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 ninety days before removing a drug from a formulary. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlok Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you for that answer. Sections twelve and thirteen, very technical. They're about independent review organizations and 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 for you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. This is when an agent is terminated that the, requirement for reporting must be done within thirty days. And, again, this gives the, Department of Insurance further information about that term that termination through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Havelock Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Great. Sections fifteen and sixteen have changes around third party administrators, which we we refer to on insurance, as TPAs in their insurance department. So what are those changes through you? Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: This ensures that service continues even if a TPA, is in I'm sorry. Even if an insurer is in receivership or goes insolvent through you. Representative Pavlant Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: 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 idea, but can you tell the chamber what a casualty claims adjuster is and what they do? Thank you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Cashly claims adjuster investigate and settle losses. They handle claims around third party liability and bodily injury and bodily injury and property damage and also automobile accidents. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlak Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you for that answer. Section 18 through 20. These sections are discussing the insurance guarantees association from my review of the bill. It looks like we're we're all doing what we're doing here is adding cybersecurity insurance policies. Is that correct? Can you clarify through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. We are definitely adding cybersecurity insurance policies to the guarantee fund. We are also increasing the limit for first party claims from 500,000 to a million dollars. 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlak Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you for that answer, and you you did answer my next question, so I don't need to ask that anymore. Sections twenty one and twenty two 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?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Yes. That is correct. We learned that Assumption Insurance is when, the first carrier may have been in business since the fifties or sixties, 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlak Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: 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?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wood.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. This model law includes notice requirements, policyholder rights, and 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Pavlov Damato.

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And, that's great to know. Lastly, section 24 revisits changes we made last session to the surplus lines brokers and their main 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 a probably the best section of this bill, and I do urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy 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.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives voting by roll, members to the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: 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?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five three seven three is amended by house a total number of one forty one necessary for passage 71. Those are voting one forty one. Those are voting a zero. Absent not voting 10.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: The bill as amended passes. Will the clerk please call 271?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: That was the case?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Yeah. Here's the

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 18, calendar two seven one, house bill five three four o as amended by house a, enact concerning renewable power generation, pay report of energy and technology.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg with the one thirty six. You have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I think when we last left our heroes, there was a conversation about the fiscal note.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (96th, New Haven/East Haven)]: I move party.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: I move adoption. I move.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Like the normal routine as amended.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: As amended. I Yeah.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: I move for acceptance of the joint

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report as amended and acceptance of the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Close enough.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question for the chambers. Acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and pass through the bill. Representative Steinberg, you're on the floor.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you. I I 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 rate payer impact, which is actually to the benefit of rate payers of anything, which was in the earlier version of the bill, and was left out of this current version, has been restored. 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 rate payer savings. But OFA has indicated that if anything, it should be beneficial. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara of the hundred and forty first.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. So I find it really hard to believe that we don't have a rate payer impact on this bill. And, I mean, 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, like, the RAM filings from our utility companies, we see those charges. Matter of fact, this last year for our rest, you know, we we have those charges right on the RAM filing. So I'm not sure exactly how we 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 rate payers? But I will move on. It's not something clearly I agree with. But let's just through you, mister 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 the ratepayer impact statement has just came back. But clearly, this is gonna 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 know have been expensive. But let's let's just move through this, please, if you don't mind. I would like to start with section one. We talk about the new the new r res program. Through you, mister speaker, there is you know, one of the definitions in there is on the low income customer. Through you, mister speaker, can we talk a little bit can the good chair talk about how the low income customer is going to be decided through you? Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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. You know, 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 our SCF 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 because they're the ones who really are feeling it the most. So this definition is the result of our conversations and how best to accomplish that. To you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you so much, mister speaker. So do they are do the utility companies already have a set defined person for, the low income customer through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Miss thank you, mister speaker. I'm sorry. Could the the representative repeat the question? I didn't hear the question of

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: it. Please, representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. And I think also I didn't I didn't state the question quite as I meant to. Do do the, utility companies already have easy access to a level and they do they already know who the low income, customers are through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg. Thank you,

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: mister 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, mister speaker. Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much. And so do we are do we understand so if we already know and we've already identified through who some of the low income customers are, are we aware if maybe they are already receiving subsidies on their electricity through

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: you? Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Indeed, it could be possible that they're eligible for other programs, but, we have not cross correlated with any other. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you so much. I think that's, you know, one of one of the concerns that I have when we when we add separate programs for low income on top of separate programs to make sure we we have 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, you know, the low income customer, we, you know, we want to be as helpful as we can for people getting being able to get energy in their house. But it could be 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. Had and and I I realized that that has not been looked at yet, but I I 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, mister speaker, one of the things I believe 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 also be for environmentally, environmental justice communities as well that could that could get this? Is is this true through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Barra.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you. And, thank you for correcting me on my terminology here. You're right. It's a distressed municipality, that we're focusing on here. So, one of the things that I you know, when you think about, again, that 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 a Bridgeport, but maybe they live in like Blackwater, some an area that is a wealthier area of the town. Does can would they also qualify for these rates through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Again, that's something we did discuss at some length. By focusing on distressed communities, it's easier for to approach them because we know the borders of 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you. I mean, I I again, I think that's something that I would like to continue to look at to make sure that when we have when we have these benefits that we're trying or incentives that we're trying to to pro provide for people, that they actually get to the people that really do need them and not just not just anyone. As we contemplate looking at ARES moving forward, it looks like we will be continuing on with offering tariffs for twenty years. Through you, mister speaker, why twenty years?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Twenty years is pretty much the standard when it comes to these kind of, arrangements. Obviously, you want a certain amount of predictability or virtually certainty, and twenty years affords that. We are not making up something new here. This is pretty much standard practice. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Barra.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you. I agree we're not making up something new here, and I think that's probably I think we should be making up something new here. I think we know that, you know, moving forward that that we will be getting better technology. And so I feel like coming in with these twenty year contracts maybe is not the best move forward. Maybe we should be looking at a ten year contract with an option for another ten years As we look at changing prices for 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 twenty years. And whatever we've offered them, it just is what it is. And now the state of Connecticut actually, excuse me, not the state of Connecticut. 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 could the good chair just go through how PURA is going to be able to set these rates and what they will be considering?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: 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. 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, 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 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, mister speaker. Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you, mister speaker. It's my understanding that we have several several different studies that can be looked at when we con when PURA is contemplating these these rates. Through you, mister speaker, if the good chair would like to comment on the significance of any of these studies.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Representative Steinberg. Thank you, mister 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 storage program going forward. I think that's the perhaps the, the one that I find most innovative and that will lead to some, real positive changes for rate payers down the road. But as the good representative says, there are, several different elements to this bill in the calculation. Again, we're putting tremendous faith and trust in PURAB 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much. And and and I I quite agree with, what the what the chair is is talking about. I think, you know, having these studies and having these numbers available and 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 to be able to have access to the data so that so that they know what they're so they've got the information in front of them when they set the rates. So there's several studies that we have have asked to be completed, you know, through many of our legislative sessions. So one of them is the integrated resource plan. This is supposed to be done every two years. Unfortunately, it has not been completed since 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, And that was due that we we put this in last year. And that was due April 1. And we have not received this either. So through you, Mr. Speaker, are we going to ask PURA to actually set tariffs based on these this old data?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: We ask a lot of deep in terms of generating key strategic analysis. 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 too, 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, are pretty well developed. And I think the important point is, even without necessarily a final version, there's constant conversation between pure 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 Pure's opinion, that that information will be available on a timely basis. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much. I would 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 I I wanna see the data. I wanna understand the data before we move forward. So, mister speaker, the clerk actually has an amendment. It is LCO five three five zero. Would you please ask the clerk to call it and I'd be allowed to summarize?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Will the clerk please call LCO 5350, which will be designated as house amendment schedule b.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule b, LCO number five three five zero offered by representative Mara.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Sieg Slieve of the Chamber to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Hearing none, representative Mara, you may proceed with the summarization.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. What this amendment does is it requires that these studies actually be completed before any of these programs are implemented. So yeah, I move for adoption.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Question before the chamber is adoption of House Amendment Schedule B. Will you remark further on the amendment, Representative Steinberg?

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: 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 this is really not necessary. So I would urge my colleagues, to vote against it. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the amendment, before us, representative Piscopo of the 76th. You have the floor, sir.

[Rep. John Piscopo (76th, Thomaston/Burlington/Harwinton) — possible brief interjection]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, this amendment makes a whole lot of sense, and we really should adopt it. Reading this bill, and I I really feel for our our our friends over at Office of Fiscal Analysis because in the in the public hearing, we had such a dis just controversy over how to figure out exactly what this was gonna cost us, what the rates are gonna be. And, it was it was it was quite a, two different tales on on will this save rate payers, will it not, what's going to happen with these tariffs. It so my my thoughts go out to our friends over at OFA, and I can understand how they why I am so confused with this fiscal note, why they had a hard time with a rate impact statement. And, so it's, all we wanna do is try and get a handle on what this is gonna cost us. This is a public benefit. We don't wanna be adopting any huge public benefit right now. And, this this amendment is just asking, let's just see what what the rates are gonna be. Let's going forward, the next twenty years, we're committing ourselves. So let's, let's take a look at what this is gonna cost us. I think we should all should, be in favor of this amendment. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative Piscopo. Will you remark further on the proposed amendment, amendment b? Representative Yaccarino of the 87th, you have the floor, sir.

[House IT/Operations staff (unidentified)]: Good evening. Good good evening, mister speaker. I just I support the amendment mainly because I missed part of the public hearing that the day we had it because I'm I'm ranking in exec dams. I was in and out all day. But when I read the bill and I read tariffs, and I read 85,000,000 or whatever the floor might be, I'm totally against tariffs, no matter what the work, federally or statewide, to me tariffs is a tax or or or a fee levied on somebody. And that somebody I would guess,

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: I don't think you need

[House IT/Operations staff (unidentified)]: to be a genius, that somebody is going to be the rate payer. So through you, mister speaker, to the good proponent of the amendment, will we be looking at or having I would prefer pure to look at this before Adeep to be a perfectly honest here. The the potential rate increase or potential cost to you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mora.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. I I really appreciate the question. PURA will be looking at the rate. But the point of this is 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 twenty years. So you're whatever rate they're gonna decide this year, and then they may change the rate next year. That's fine. But they're not gonna whatever they put out for the first year, that that's a twenty year commitment for those programs. Twenty years at that rate. We want them to have the best information moving forward. And this this is nothing new. We've asked for these studies to be done. They've been some of them have been partially done. This is information that we should have.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Yaccarino.

[House IT/Operations staff (unidentified)]: I I appreciate that. I really think that rate pair, we owe that to the. I'm not gonna mention names, right, not this session. Last year, summoning the energy committee when we brought up how when we run the campaign trail, people are so upset about the public benefits and how they're they can't afford it or they complain to us. And our response the response to me, I think was 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 of our of our state, and not blaming anybody here, but the fact is it's so expensive to live here. And potentially, for 20 to get into a twenty year deal, if you're Jerry Bost, the past owner of the Lakers in 1980, he had a twenty year deal with Magic Johnson at 5,000,000 a year, that was a great deal. Because nobody realized that salary was gonna go up to 30,000,000 a year. But if you're in a twenty year deal and you're paying every year 10 5% more, you're in trouble. And you know who's in trouble? The rate payer. So I don't see any harm in looking at this and studying this for the rate payer, the taxpayer, and the citizens of the state of Connecticut. So I and we all want solar. And there was a comment about natural gas. It's at our border. It is at the border of New York in this legislative body, and the governor has not done anything to 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. It we're lucky if we get 15 to 18% of good enough enough sun for solar. So I wish it was there or not there, but I do support this amendment. Thank you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative Yaccarino. Will you remark further on house amendment schedule b? One. Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I I just wanna 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 that brought them to this point. So they're already pretty clued in. Additionally, we give PURA eighteen months, roughly, to actually do the 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, you know, there really isn't going to be a gap here of any consequence. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative. Will

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: you remark further

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: on the house amendment schedule b representative Iaccarino for the second time?

[House IT/Operations staff (unidentified)]: Thank you, mister speaker, for the second time. Just for the delay of the implement implementing this, what was the time frame through you, mister speaker, to the proponent?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara. Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: The 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 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.

[House IT/Operations staff (unidentified)]: Representative Yacarino. I appreciate that answer. And that but my question was and I appreciate that. I guess I knew the answer which is for shame on me, but we really don't have they're working on this now. And if it takes six months or three months, and it makes the rate payer we save rate payer dollars, all we know the actual cost, it's only fair to the public. It's forgive me for I shouldn't have done it that way, but I I wasn't sure. We owe this to the public, mister speaker. We we 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative Yaccarino. Will you remark further on house amendment schedule b? Representative Mara, how would you like the vote taken?

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: I would like it to be taken by roll. Thank you.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Delnicki of the fourteenth, you have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Devin Carney (23rd, Old Saybrook/Westbrook/Old Lyme/Lyme)]: Thank you, mister 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 the pun public benefit charge, how is that going to be applied to this 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 a homeowner or a commercial enterprise. There's a huge impact there, and we're pricing ourselves quite high. So I, I rise in support, wholehearted support on this amendment. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, representative Dalnicki. Most staff and guests, please come to the well of the house. Members, take your seats. Head to your portals. The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll, members to the chamber.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: On the wrong piece of paper. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm freaking out. I'm just going

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: off. Shuffling, shuffling, shuffling. No.

[Rep. Jack Fazzino (83rd, Berlin/Meriden)]: That's it.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Have all the members voted?

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: I mean, I do. No. No. Okay.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Will the

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Oh, fuck.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: And the

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: clerk will take a tally.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Would the

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: court please announce the tally?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: But amendment schedule b, total number voting one thirty nine, necessary for adoption 70. Those voting eight forty nine. Those voting eight ninety, absent voting 12. House amendment b fails.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much. It's too bad that that that failed, but I I am a little bit assured by the the chair's mention that he does believe these studies are are going to be completed. And and I do I do trust that that is that is his intent. We we have had a very good, honest, working relationship thus far, and I have no doubt that that is his his intent that this will be occurring. When establishing this race, this is in section c. And I'm digging a little bit more kind of on the ARES because the the rest of the programs will are are similar, really. So it'll be a little bit heavy in this section. But it talks about how the in section c that the establishing the the rates will be based on electric system benefits received by all rate payers. And it also talks about time of production and equitable distribution participant benefits. I mean, particularly, we talk about equitable distribution, participant benefits. But if the chair would like to comment on any of those sections, I I certainly would appreciate, kind of his thoughts on how how this is going to be implemented through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg. Steinberg.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Yes.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Chamber will stand at ease. The chamber will come back to order. Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 sided 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, mister

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: speaker. Representative Barra.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. I'm I do apologize. I'm I'm not sure I quite understand. How exactly is the equitable distribution of the participant benefits implemented through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. That is part of the tariff analysis and determination that we're asking for you to do through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you. I kinda I wanna move on to when we are dealing with multifamily housing and developments. It looks like there is there was one one tariff that would be offered for the full premises of the development. So just through you, mister speaker, who decides or or how is it decided that who gets to decide or pick this one tariff through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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, 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 that apply. So our goal is to really do something for all of them, but in in an equitable way. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you. I I appreciate this is this is a very tricky part. So I I just kinda wanna clarify some some thoughts or 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 would the whole multifamily unit qualify for a low income discount through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Again, if I understand the question, there is a distinction between four and fewer units which have no explicit income requirements and five and more. Does that answer your question through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: That may have clarified it. If so you're saying if we have five or more, and maybe I maybe I misread this. If you have five or more, do you just individually, individually charge each of the people in the multifamily housing unit through you? Maybe I misunderstood.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I I I do believe you have to have an arrangement with each householder. I'm I'm not exactly sure precisely how it works. You, mister speaker. Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Yeah. You know, I I appreciate that. I mean, certainly, one would hope that if we have and 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 is just at at market value. So, you know, striking the right balance to where, you know, maybe the whole whole multifamily unit is not getting a a discount rate, And they're paying what they, you know, should be paying. And it's just the percentage that actually, require it would get the benefit. And and I'm hoping that that's kind of that's the the thought that what we're doing here through you, mister speaker, if that sounds right.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I I hope that as well. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you. I think that's probably to be continued. I just wanna move on to section f in in this bill, and I I believe that's the still the same section. This talks about where the cost can be prudently and reasonably incurred by the electric companies or utilities. Through you, mister speaker, where will there be where will we be collecting these costs?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. It we explicitly state that this would be captured in the nine non bypassable charge on the bill, which is what we've used in the past. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you. So there will be a charge in the non bypassable public benefits charge, which is, I think, what we were discussing all along. That we know that there will be a charge for this, and that's this is where it's going to be collected. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I think it would 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 how are these benefits decided when you have so you have we have solar. So let let me back everybody up. So right now, many of our programs, they are residential solar. So this is, you know, just solar on top of your roof or nonresidential. So if you have, you know, commercial building, this can be, solar on top of your roof or, the SCF programs. We and we've done quite a bit at that. What what we're seeing now in the state of Connecticut and many, you know, in many states that are doing this, we used to have a peak for energy supply in the middle of the 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 this is you not using energy. So during the day, the transmission is is 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 a there is 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 and they're turning on their lights, well, we're not gonna 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. So 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 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? 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 solar you've got your battery there. So it does something that that we call peak shaving. So it keeps us from 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 I realize that is one of the things that we're contemplating in this bill. But I I thought I would give the good chair a chance to talk a little bit about that through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I 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 rate payer 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 rate payers beyond that of the, of the, of the solar itself caused by the storage. And the 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 that storage is the key to unlocking the full value of solar. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much. And and I I realized with this discussion, I knew this was gonna happen that we will be skipping a little bit between this and and and the green bank, which is actually section seven. But my concern about the numbers as they are now, and maybe, maybe the good chair can help me, what study who actually did the the study to figure out this 1.6 factor for the REM? Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Pura, through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Mara. Okay. I it was my understanding that this was done by by solar companies before. As as many of you know, I I you know, I I've spent a lot of time with my schooling kind of looking at studies and and talking about how to do a proper study, how you can eliminate bias from study. And it bothers me a little bit that we are we are putting the study in Greenbank's hands, Where Greenbank clearly has a bias to make the battery stores look really good. And maybe I'm wrong, actually. Through you, mister 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 the study? Through

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: you. Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 one thing, Forging good solutions for the right payers of the state of Connecticut. And virtually all their programs, some of them quite innovative, have achieved that goal. So I I simply don't see evidence of bias. Often times, 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, mister speaker. Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: 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 a given result. And, I'm 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 you need to make sure that your controls are there. And, and if 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 Bank is, you know, 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

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: a lot

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: of efficiency benefits that are coming off of our bill right now. So let's let's move on then to some of the the in res programming through you. Mister 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 NRES program through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I want to thank the good representative for highlighting an aspect that'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 focused on agricultural. We'd 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, on their buildings. So these were the three areas. There's sort of carryovers from the existing program, but they remain important to us going forward. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you. It looks like, each of the muni either municipal, state, or agriculture can have five accounts on on

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: a

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: single INRES program. Is is that that is my understanding through reading this through you, mister speaker. Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. That's my understanding. I I I really can't recall how we arrived at that back in the day, but it was to give them some flexibility. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you too. So my concern is is will will PURA have some sort of efficacy standards when they look at where the state can put some of some of these voltaic programs. Here's here's what I you know, I'm I'm trying to come up with, like, different examples. For instance, we know that, you know, the the state owns, like, roadways. Right? So could the state conceivably put solar panels, like, 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, like, the Capitol Building, the LOB, a prison, or, you know, five accounts. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this question. I, for one, you know, I've been to Massachusetts along their highways. They've got solar 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Oh, boy. I might regret saying this. Okay. Through you, mister 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 in and say, hey. If these are the five premises, you you know, 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 kind of dealer's choice through you?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 are 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 in rendering their decisions. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you. And I I really hope so. I 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 gonna be best. And again, because these are twenty year contracts that we're putting out. Right? So this is 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 for twenty years. So it really behooves us to get this right. Will renewable energy certificates be given with each of these?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Through you, mister speaker, to my knowledge, Rex are not involved here. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Barrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Through you, Mr. Speaker, if I could just point to lines one hundred and eighty four and one hundred and eighty five. This might be an old one. I do believe that renewable energy certificates are generated with each of these. Through you, mister speaker, if I if I could just kind of clarify. I wasn't trying to get a gotcha on that one.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. If there are reqs involved, that's through the RPS process and not explicitly through this program through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Barrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. So this is where the fun begins. So if anybody is interested and you want to pull out your computer and you wanna look at how much renewable energy certificates cost the state of Connecticut, feel free to do that. The other thing that might be really fun if you are interested, because these wrecks this is one of the ways that we actually offset offset the payment. So you've got part of these payments that that you're gonna see in the public benefits. But for every megawatt that you are producing on solar, there is a wreck that goes with it. And so one of the ways that this is funded is through the cell of these wrecks. So if you all have looked at how much the wrecks 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 wrecks? 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 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 gonna get to eventually zero, is by the purchase of these wrecks. 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 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. Through you, mister speaker, the INRES program, it does talk about it does allow for it 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 what you use within that building, if I'm if that makes sense, like, the access energy. Is there a cap on that? I was a little bit confused because it looked like in one in one portion it said, you know, only to the amount that you normally use. And then another section, it kind of looked like it was the full rooftop. And I'm I'm not trying to do a gotcha. I'm just curious if the, if the chair is aware of of this. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. As the representative knows, we did spend a a bit of time talking about rooftops and how 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you. I will, I will move on to section three. And, please, I hope everybody understands that these first kind of, three fours, four ish sections are the in my mind, kind of the the more important that I I wanna 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 SCF program. This is a community and is now called a community solar program. So what this does is is provides provides larger solar that low income people can subscribe into to utilize it? Through you, mister speaker, is it only low income customers that can subscribe to this solar program?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 an, 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.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Speaker. Representative, Mauro.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: 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 all, all together so you don't have those connect those huge connection charges, I think, makes more sense. Is there a reason why we only are doing this for for low income. It seems to me like this is a better way to go than many of the residential programs where so many people so many people can't actually put you know, they they live in a tree area, and they can't actually put solar on top of their roof. It seems more seems like a better solution to actually move more to a community solar. Through you, mister speaker, has this been contemplated?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 that we really was important for us to focus on lower income people now, at, 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, of affordability most acutely. So, we stand by the focusing on them, at least for the time being. If a good representative would like to contemplate bills in the future that expand it, I'm sure we'd be interested. Through you, mister speaker. Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: 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 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 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 four. If the good chair wouldn't mind kind of going through I know there were some discussions on whether there should be a cap. Which I, I I 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 four and just talk about the thoughts behind the target pricing on this through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I appreciate the question. I spent a lot of time on trying to figure out how 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 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. For example, in 2025, the ARES 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 85,000,000, which is, roughly equivalent to 180 megawatts as the basis for moving forward. That would assure that if Pure did a good job of adhering to these targets, that it would be a reduction to rate payers somewhere in the eight to 10% range. Through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you. I mean, I I I hear you that it sounds like there seems to be a discussion of a a reduction from, you know, 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, is that I'm not going to be able to look at these big numbers. But we can see certainly on from from what we have been doing 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 wrecks. 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 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 gonna have Netflix all the time for the next twenty years, and you're gonna pay x amount of dollars for it. Next year, you're gonna get Hulu. So now you've got Netflix and Hulu and you're gonna have Hulu for the next twenty years. So you've only got nineteen years more of Netflix. Okay. The next year, you're gonna get Disney plus. So now you got Disney plus, Hulu, and Netflix, and you're paying for them all. And you're gonna have Disney plus for twenty years. You're gonna have Hulu for eighteen years, and you're gonna have Netflix for one less. Right? I I think everybody understands what I'm saying. This is what we've already been doing. And now

[Representative (unidentified) — Pledge leader]: here,

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: this is going to be offered until the year 2035. So we have currently, which we haven't gotten into this, 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 this new program comes into play. So we already have so many years of twenty year contracts that we have 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 wanna talk about benefit, which sorry. The the rate impact statement says is a benefit, I would like for them to explain how that actually happens and and have they also considered the REX? Did they also consider the renewable portfolio? I mean, I I got that I got that impact statement back in, what, like, fifteen minutes? I mean, I I I'm pretty decent at math, but that would take me a a while to do that. I I mean, that came a little bit fast to say that it was a benefit to our our, rate payers. Mister speaker, I'm not sure. I hope that everyone in here understands what we're doing to our rate payers. And I I hope that PURA understands too. I mean, we we have we have a new set of commissioners in PURA. And and one of the things that we did, we tasked them to do is say, please look at rate payer benefits. But we said that before, and this is where we are. How are we number two across the nation if they've been looking out for rate payers? 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, you know, given softballs up to the good chair, and and and kudos to the good chair for talking about the benefits of battery with 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 85,000,000 a year, You get to procure until the end of 2035. So right? And then for so that's ten years. You count this year. It's maybe even be more this year because it's the old program. And then and then you take all of those programs times twenty years. That is $17,000,000,000. $17,000,000,000. And I'm not even making this up. Right? We're looking at it. 85,000,000 a year times ten years times twenty 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 just, you know, kind of I'll kind of quickly touch through some of the others, because I think that there are some good things in here. And maybe maybe actually there'll be other people that'll be speaking on some of the other issues. Here's my sorry, I lost my we've talked about Green Bank. 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, mister speaker, would the good chair like to talk a little bit about solar, portable solar generation?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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, you know, average people with the ability to 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 it's even though it has solar panels involved, it's fundamentally different than a typical solar array. So, we put, 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 that 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 Bay 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 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 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, of plug ins, solar, you're you're gonna probably have to get a meter at some point. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker, and thank you to the good chair for the PSA there. What we do know is 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 a 1,200 watts, that they could actually produce more than they require. And here's the kicker. And, you know, 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 is your meter doesn't understand when the energy flows that way that it's not it's that it's a benefit. So you're gonna be charged for it. So, this was one of the things that and and I I'm not going to be bringing forward this, amendment, but I have discussed this with the chair. I I did originally have an amendment to require the use of advanced metering, systems. So this is 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 the 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? We it this is like, you can just do this, and that is just a good thing. So I'm I'm very 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 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 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 several sections here that kind of that deal with renewable safety. And I know these are very well thought out well thought out sections of this bill. And I certainly appreciate I I appreciate the process with which that occurred. Through you, mister speaker, I'd like to talk a little bit about the so the storage solar and storage permit approval. If the good chair can just confirm that this solar permitting approval process that will be offered municipalities to help with their approval process. This is not a mandate to our municipalities. Is that true through you,

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: mister speaker? Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. It's not a mandate, but we are strongly encouraging every municipality to adopt a streamline permitting process. And if they choose not to 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, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: 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, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg. Thank you, mister speaker. That is correct.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Through

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: you. Representative Amaro.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you. And then the last section that I will I'm gonna skip over to section 18 to talk about this seemed to be like a a little bit of a newer section that popped in here. And this is about a rebate to gas customers. Through you, mister 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,

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. You notice this is 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, a discount on distribution costs. We feel we're remedying the situation here. And again, as I said, it has benefit for electric ratepayers through you.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. And through you, mister speaker. So will the rebate be in the form of a charge on the public benefit charge on the electric customer? Is that is that correct through you, mister speaker?

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Through you, that's roughly my understanding. The mechanism, I'm not exactly sure, but for the for electric rate pairs, yes, it would be reflected in in a reduction. Through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Sorry. I just I I think I misunderstood. For the electric customer, will

[Rep. Christie Carpino (32nd, Cromwell/Portland)]: the other natural gas.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: 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 a new public benefit on your gas bill through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. If I understand correctly, the charge will be on the the retail charge to gas customers who may pay a little bit more. But correspondingly, there'll be a reduction for electric customers. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: 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 will it be an even change through you, mister speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Yes. Roughly, an even exchange. Through you, mister speaker. Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: But possibly separate customers. Is that right? Through you?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, it's conceivable that a customer is both a gas and electric customer, so it could be the same. But it's also possible it could be different. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Morrow.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Okay. Thank you so much. I have I have no more questions for the chair at this time. I I hope that we've I mean, I I imagine that we have some other people that have questions. But I I hope that we've kind of we've 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 as we were talking. I I gotta be honest with you. I I don't I don't agree with the rate payer impact statement. And if if we were able to have gotten another amendment through, I would have put an amendment in. This is what I actually I I came to the committee at the beginning of this session, and I said, we really need to have rate payer impact statements. Like, everyone needs to know if something's gonna happen to your rates, what it is. And and I went a step further with with this bill, and I said, and if this rate payer impact statement is wrong by something like, I don't know, 20%, 30%, 50%. Because at that point, I'd gone back and I'd looked at, like, twenty 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. But yet, you can follow each of those bills here. They're in the 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 a statute that we're supposed to contemplate, and we're supposed to let people know what the impact is to our rate payer. And so 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 rate payers. And and and as we have done this along the way, we can see that we had 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 these are just some of the netting customers that that was a problem. And I do hope that, you know, 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 people that have solar, people that don't have solar, but it's gonna be something. Like, you don't do $85,000,000 and add on $85,000,000 and add on $85,000,000 and have twenty year contracts and say that there's no fiscal impact. How does that make sense? Does anybody believe that? Mister 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 rate payers is not what we should be doing in the state of Connecticut when we have the second highest electric rates in the comp in the country. Thank you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Jensen. Alright.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Hello, mister speaker. Thank you. And I do have a few questions for the the good chair.

[Rep. Greg Howard (43rd, Stonington/North Stonington)]: Please proceed.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Thank you. So I'd like to start back on line 67, where it says, The authority shall shall assess whether incorporating time varying rates and other dynamic pricing methods. Does this require advanced metering? Is is that correct through you, mister chair?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Mister speaker.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: I I wanna 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 ten 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 time of use pricing without smart meters, but it's a lot better and more efficient with them. Through you, mister speaker.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Representative Jensen. So the existing meters then can do this dynamic pricing through you, mister speaker? Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Okay. Thank you for that. And then is there an additional cost then for these smart meters through you, mister speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Yes. There is the rub. In fact, the cost of this program in the ten 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, rate payers 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 or or selling electrons, if you will, particularly if they have batteries in their home, is a game changer. That's where we need to be. I am eager for the state of Connecticut to get there. Through you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) '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, mister speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I'm not exactly sure which line it would be, but ratepayers would probably pay virtually all the burden on this. And that's kind of one of the reasons we haven't gotten it done yet. Through you, mister speaker.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Representative Jensen. Okay. Thank you. So I think I understand the the metering. Next, I want to just move on to line 97. And it says, in order to be eligible to participate in the program, disputed 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? Alright? What if we what if there is a a

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: what if

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: one of these systems exceeds the the current, user's load? I mean, I could think of many reasons why this could happen. You could have a overzealous sell salesperson. You could have a an overzealous buyer who says, I want a big system. Right? So then what happens? Through you, Mr. Speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: 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. You have to 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Speaker. Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Okay. Thank you for that. One second. Alright. So now I'm gonna move on to section four. And this is about the money. So my first question through you, mister speaker, is we're looking at $85,000,000 a year. Now I've heard ten years and twenty years here. So is it 85,000,000 times ten years for $850,000,000 total investment? Is is that correct through you, mister speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg?

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. If you could repeat the question.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Yeah. So Total investment through you? Yeah. I see I see $85,000,000 per year. Is that for ten years, or is that for twenty years? I'm hearing both, and I'm not sure which it is. Through you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 85,000,000 would apply. And actually that doesn't start until after we start the program, after Pura has promulgated the rules. That's a couple years out from now as it is. With regard to the twenty years, that has to do with the contract terms, which also relates to the life of the solar panels themselves. So the twenty years is really about the contract. The 85,000,000 applies to the given year, not the entire length. Through you, Mr. Speaker.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Representative Jensen. Alright. I'm sorry. I think I'm still confused. So so it's $85,000,000 per year for twenty years. No? Through you, mister speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 PURA 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. PURA is in the position with the data to make those kind of decisions. The twenty years is is with regard to the contract terms. So this is not for twenty years. But the contract, once signed, would last for twenty years. And the tariff rate for that contract would last for that entire time. Through you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: So just so I'm sure I I have this right, so the total, say, capital outlay would be $850,000,000 to $85,000,000 times ten years. Is that correct? Through you, mister speaker. Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Roughly the case. That's our objective. It's through you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) '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 that are cited in the bill here. And I have one of them here in front of me. I have the comprehensive energy energy strategy. And in the comprehensive energy strategy on page 37, Deep recommends an annual investment of $35,000,000 per year for distributed generation. And it goes on further Sir. A few page later to talk about three separate programs It's set split into three separate categories, very similar to the three separate programs that we're looking at in our bill here today. So my question for the proponent of the bill through you, mister 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?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Could you provide me with a line reference so that I

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: could be on the same page as

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: you through you, mister speaker? I'm on representative Jensen. Thank thank you.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: I am on

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: page 37. It's the the last paragraph of page 37 of the Connecticut comprehend comprehensive energy study strategy, not study. Through you, mister speaker. Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the c c s handy. I'm I've I'm sure that your your your quoting of the reference is correct.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: God bless you. God for

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: a clench for a minute. I think it's what's most important is that currently, Deep is 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 for the former CES and the strategy for the for the new one in making determinations. Mhmm. I don't think that's going to be a problem. Through you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: 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 a staggering $50 a watt. Today, it's less than 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 wanna 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 if you do if that the output of that is about 10 megawatt 10 megawatts 10 megawatts a year. With a lifetime of twenty five 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 point seven four 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. Alright? So it's one third the price of what Eversource is charging. Alright? 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 $850,000,000 over the next ten years. So that being said, I'd like to move on to line three ninety three, and we're gonna talk about battery storage now. And so the the goal is 580 megawatts of storage. I'm just wondering through you, mister speaker, where that where that figure came from.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. The 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 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, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Alright. Thank 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 in our bill here,

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: it

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: then moves on to alright. The my next question was around nine line. Three ninety nine rate payer impact measurement test. Now, this is the one that we had discussed before that Green Bank is gonna be working on through you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. The 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 as 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 WIM will be an important factor in determining how best to make an effective efficient program. Through you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Okay. Thank you for that. And then if I'm gonna move on to line four zero three, and we are still on energy storage, and it says there that it shall not be counted by the by the authority towards the megawatt procurement or budgetary targets set forth in this subsection. Does that mean that there's no cap on the spending for battery storage? Through you, mister Speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister Speaker. We did that intentionally. We had a lot of conversation about it. Because we believe that 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, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Yes. Thank you. And I would be very interested in seeing the calculations on these the RIMS study. I mean, I've I've seen the the conclusion, but not the numbers, through you, mister speaker. I don't know if it's a question.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Was that a question?

[Representative (unidentified) 'Jensen']: Alright. So now I'm gonna move on to section seven, and this is the the green bank that's gonna establish the the pilot program. Again, we're looking at $2,000,000, and I'm just wondering how that is gonna be funded through you, mister speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. This is a conversation we had with the Green Bank as soon as we started talking about the pilot. They have available resources to apply for the specific case. No impact on ratepayers. Through you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) '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 nine 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, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Really good point. Something we discussed, you know, some would have preferred a 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 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 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 breaker box. We had to replace a lot of that. You don't wanna 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, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Jensen.

[Representative (unidentified) '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 $850,000,000 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 I can't support a blank check for for energy storage. So because of those two reasons, I won't be supporting this bill today. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mashinsky, you have the floor.

[Rep. Mary Mushinsky (85th, Wallingford)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I rise in support of this bill. And I want to thank representative Steinberg for his great work on it. I wanna tell you the experience of my constituent, Jason Zandry, 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 he 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 a thousand 400 per year in his fourth year. And it will it will get even better as he goes on. But he is completely electric. He has, six people in 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 roll in 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 wanna give more households the opportunity of all incomes. The opportunity to save money in their electric bill. So 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 is some control now in the families on their energy bill. I agree with both Representative Steinberg and Representative Mara 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 when people come home from work and it is most needed, that makes the most sense. So based on my constituent's experience, I am 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 wanna thank the energy committee for all the work on this as we go forward. Thank you, representative Steinberg.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, mister speaker. A few questions if I may.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: I'm looking at section 11 starting at line six seventy four. 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.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (96th, New Haven/East Haven)]: And

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: if you wouldn't mind through you, mister speaker, if you would just speak to that a little about whether indeed this section does encourage eating up farmland with solar panels?

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Representative And

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: if so and if so, the reason why? Thank you. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I don't know about using 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 for the use of solar panels. I would also like to encourage the good representative to perhaps direct, this as well to my colleague, Representative Foster, who had a lot to do with the writing of this section. Through you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, mister speaker. If representative Foster has a better answer, I'd be glad to hear it. Thank you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Foster.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Foster' — likely Veterans/Environment floor manager]: Through you, mister 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 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, mister speaker, I believe the goal of this legislation is to 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, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubiski.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, mister speaker. And I I very much appreciate that answer. I'm a little hesitant though, and I'll 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, you know, 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 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 thirty years. You don't even have to sell it to me. I'll lease it from you and 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

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: very

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: profitable and well run farms in Connecticut over the last ten 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 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 online six eighty seven and six eighty eight. 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, mister speaker, is there any such provision that perhaps I'm just missing? Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Foster.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Foster' — likely Veterans/Environment floor manager]: Through you, mister speaker, there are actually two, studies outlined in this program. And in lines, a 49, 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 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, in section c starting on lines a 35, 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, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Dubitsky.

[Rep. Steve Weir (55th, Hebron/Marlborough/Andover)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I and I appreciate that. I did see that section. Not sure it fully resolves my concerns. My 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 on the sides of roads and in places where we are not where there isn't this conflict between preserving farmland and preserving active art agriculture and building solar. So in in my own, in one of my towns, there is currently a project planned where they're gonna 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 I know a guy 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, you know, I I know we're 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 the state. So I, you know, I I'll go through this bill one more time and I will listen to the rest of the debate, but I just think it it encourages the wrong part of that conflict and it should be encouraging use of rooftops and roadsides and things like that. Thank you, mister speaker. And thank you thank the, the good representatives for their responses. I appreciate it.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Hackard?

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: At least I got some exercise in today. Running up the stairs. Of course, my computer shut up. Well through you mister 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 on 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. I'd like to start with the plug in. I wish, the the plug in component, the plug in soul, 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 a maybe an older circuit. So through you, mister speaker, is the wattage still capacity for that plug in for that at 1.2 k w or 1,200 watts through you mister speaker?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. That's my understanding. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Hector.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Thank you, mister speaker. In typical household circuit is 1,800 watts. And so that's a more than 50% of it. So it shall be a dedicated circuit. So if someone's gonna 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 gonna be on a circuit. Because Cause the circuit's gonna be on with other loads. And granted it's a in flow, but it's still in the same wiring component. So I think that would have been a 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 gonna 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, mister speaker, to the good chair of energy and technology? Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Yes. That is the agreement we came to some years ago when we were acting you independently of the other ISO states. As the good representative knows, we are currently in negotiation with Dominion, the owner of Millstone, and that is only being done on a, a multi state basis because we never wanted to be in the situation we were before. And the the available supply will be will benefit all of us the ISO New England states. I'm not sure I necessarily answered your question, but that is what what it was. What it will be is not exactly clear yet. Through you, mister speaker. Representative Hackard.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: That 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 of work around that plant. So it was a really we were investing not just in an energy source, but we were 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 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 the battery storage. I had a a good friend of mine that worked at a peaker plant. What a peaker plant is is say, hey. We need power. Fire up that beaker plant. So it barely runs all month, this this plant. But you're paying for all the jobs. You're paying for the maintenance. You're paying for the the the the its electric bill to keep going. And then when it's called upon, it may run for a day or 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 we are taking that peak power. And when it starts to drop, we're load we're taking that and and creating that to be a balanced power production in that 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 looked at this bill, there wasn't a lot on 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, a a, 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 continuing that investment? We are. We are continuing the investment. We're competing 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 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 I invested in that solar, and

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: I got a I I

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: got a a break because I I had an incentive. So I got a 10,000 watt solar on the

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: top of my roof.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: 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 to senior housing, and it's a 900 square foot, inefficient, electric heat house apartment. Their electric bill is $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 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 inflation. Yes. I know the the the the wild wild world is the public benefits right now. And I do I do appreciate the the good ranking members comments about this, the work that she has done on this, and 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 bat battery storage. These, at sometimes, are considered investments. So I will wait and listen for more of the dialogue. Thank you for the time, mister speaker. I thank you for the good chair and the ranking members dialogue on this bill. I appreciate it.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Winter.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Winter']: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the bill as amended and I have a couple of questions for the proponent of the bill.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Please proceed.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Winter']: I would like to ask how the bill helps ensure that solar and storage is installed and operated safely.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Foster.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Foster' — likely Veterans/Environment floor manager]: Through you, mister speaker, for 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 District's, 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 this definite what this these sections do, sections twelve and thirteen, 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 Connecticut Siding Council to require, the, the or require the developer to create training, to train a fire department in an existing district to know that 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 in the occasion that an incident may happen, though infrequent, may happen. Through you, mister speaker.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Winter']: 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 rate payers?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: 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 la 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 69¢ for every dollar that we invest. You get your money back and 69¢. And that is the standard metric used to evaluate storage in this context. We have every expectation we will have a a positive score again when the Green Bank completes its pilot program. Through you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Representative Winter.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Winter']: Thank you, mister 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 $85,000,000 budgetary target. But these programs can be designed in such a way that they yield a net benefit to all rate payers. So not only a benefit to the person who's putting solar on their roof, but the other ratepayers who live near that rate 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 solar panels export to the grid. But if it's set in the right way, we can deliver positive benefits so that 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 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. The Connecticut Green Bank recently released a report that over 45,000 clean energy jobs are supported by the state's clean energy program. So these dollars are not only producing benefits for all rate payers, but also have the potential to continue job growth here in Connecticut. Beyond that, I think it's important 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 costs 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 hang it 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 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, mister chair.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Hizcapo. Quick first step there.

[Rep. John Piscopo (76th, Thomaston/Burlington/Harwinton) — possible brief interjection]: Sorry about that. Apologies to the chamber. Thank you, mister speaker. Appreciate it. We've been in the news a lot. So I'll I'll just try and just make a few few comments on this. First of all, my friend from the 47th District, mentioned the farmlands and he's worried about it. And in the public hearing, we had real strong testimony opposed to this bill from the Working Lands Alliance. Connecticut has a 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 it half of that is is what we call pry prime farmland soil. So it's a so when you when you look at it that way, where we are, we are pretty limited. Connecticut is about the thirty ninth 39% of Connecticut is developed, and 4% of it, we're we're 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 worse in my opinion. We mentioned subsidies. Here we are. This bill could this this this bill could easily been a policy of a clean net metering bill. Get back to net metering paid when when you when you're not using the power, you you you charge the you 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 3.5¢ a a kilowatt hour. So, you know, you that that would be a clean bill instead of this layered tariff method that we have tried that we're gonna try and then accomplish. It's heavily sub it heavily subsidized the solar industry. And whenever you talk about subsidies, they always bring, fossil fuels, you know, like fossil well, we 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. That's they they're counting that as as subsidies as a criticism. You you pay for your 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 we charge them for their 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 our carbon cap and trade that Connecticut's involved in. This is a this bill heavily subsidizes heavily subsidizes our our solar costs. It said 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 gotta look at the whole nine yards. Most of the solar panels are 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 the 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 production facilities ruined their ruined all that or their farmland in China. So all all 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 you know, that's all I have to say. And it this bill is, I said I'd be brief. I I I don't wanna get I I've got three pages of notes. I'm not gonna get into one of them. So I thank you for your time, mister chair mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Mara.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you for the second time. I just wanted to make it abundantly clear. I 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 $85,000,000 target. I am not talking about that. I agree. That can 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 target. So I wanna go through one more time just to make sure everybody understands just because one of my colleagues had some questions. 85,000,000 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 a 170,000,000. And those subscriptions last for twenty years. You do that for ten years. Every year, you add 85,000,000 more, and each one of those gets twenty years. That's how I come up with the 17,000,000,000. It's not rocket science. This does not include the rim number, which may be inflated, but I 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 one, section two, section three, 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 one, sections two, and sections three. The other point I wanna 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 wanna make it abundantly clear why I do not support this bill. It is an added charge to the residents of the state of Connecticut. Thank you very much, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representatives. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Steinberg.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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 wanna make sure that everybody understands our legislative intent, That that those are the only circumstances in which a pause on solar development will will be allowed. 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. So I do expect to get phone calls from him, though it last hours. I also want to thank, my good ranking member, Representative Mara, who's been very patient with us, very forbearing. And I 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 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. 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. I think will put us on a, 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 a kind way and and added so much value beyond simply writing legislative language and helping us make this bill better. And lastly, I want to thank the person sitting next to me, Kimmy Grove, who, 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 everybody for helping us get to this point. Thank you, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come to the well

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: of the house? Will the

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives is voting by roll of members of the chamber. The house of representatives is voting by roll of members of the chamber.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Alright. Watch watch me wait for a second. Have all the members voted? Have all the members voted?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Will the

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: members please check the board to determine if your vote is properly cast? If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked,

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: and the clerk will take a tally.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The clerk will please send now to tally.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five three four o is amended by house a total number forty one forty two. Nassar for passes 72. Those voting eight ninety nine. Those voting eight forty three. Absent of voting nine.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The bill as amended passes. Will the clerk please call calendar number one one eight?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page seven, calendar one one eight. House bill number five two nine five. Enact naming the Connecticut National Guard Readiness Center in the town of Putnam. Fair report of Veterans Affairs.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The good chair of Veterans Affairs. Representative Foster, you have the floor.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: K. Let me know when

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: you're calling to your president. Through

[Representative (unidentified) 'Foster' — likely Veterans/Environment floor manager]: you, mister speaker, I move acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Foster' — likely Veterans/Environment floor manager]: Mister 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Ask for what?

[Representative (unidentified) 'Foster' — likely Veterans/Environment floor manager]: Oh, the LCO number 5406. My apologies.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: 5406.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will the clerk please call LCO 5406, which will be designated house amendment schedule a.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, LCO number 5406, offered by representative Foster. Senator Hohne, et al.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Foster' — likely Veterans/Environment floor manager]: Through you, mister speaker. If folks are feeling a wee bit of deja vu, that is because these concepts have been seen closely before the chamber but before. But because of disc discussions between the good representative of the 50th, house District and the adjutant general of the Connecticut National Guard and the family who which is receive whose, father is being named in the National Guard Readiness Center. The convention of the naming has been changed, and I move adoption.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The question before the chamber's adoption of house amendment schedule a, will you remark on the amendment?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Sorry.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Foster?

[Representative (unidentified) 'Foster' — likely Veterans/Environment floor manager]: Mister speaker, the amendment is the underlying bill. I move adoption.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Will you remark further? Representative Anderson.

[Rep. Mark Anderson (62nd, Granby/Barkhamsted/Hartland/Norfolk)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Good bill ought to pass.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Representative Stewart.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Thank you, mister 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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?

[Speaker 0]: The machine will be opened.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The House of Representatives voting by roll, members of the chamber. The House of Representatives voting by roll, members of the chamber.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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? While the members have voted, the machine will be locked, and

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: the clerk will take a tally.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The clerk will please announce the tally.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five two nine five is amended by house a, total number one forty three. Nest server passes 72. Those voting a one forty three. Those are voting a zero absent up voting eight. Bill is amended, passes.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: That's me first, Brent.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Right? Thank you. Thank you. Greg, thank you.

[Rep. Anthony Nolan (39th, New London)]: Okay.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Okay. Will the clerk please call calendar number 79?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page four, calendar 79, substitute for hospital number 5153, an act concerning minor revisions to Department of Energy and Environmental Protection related statutes. Favorite report of environment?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The good chair. Representative Parker, you have the floor.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Good evening, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favor report and passage of the bill.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favor report and passage of the bill. Representative Parker, you have

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: the floor.

[Rep. Aundré Bumgardner (41st, Groton/Stonington)]: Thank you.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment LCO five six seven four. I ask for the clerk to call the amendment for a leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Will the clerk please call LCO five six seven four, which will be designated house amendment schedule a.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House amendment schedule a, l c l c o five six seven four were offered by Representative Parker, Representative Baumgartner, Representative Callahan. Representative six leads over to

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: the chamber to summarize. Is there objection to summarization? Hearing none, Representative Parker, you may proceed.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Thank you, mister speaker. The bill, the amendment here adds on some additional minor provisions that I'll move through our committee. I'd be happy to discuss them with my good ranking member, when we get to it. But with that, I'll I'll move for, passage of the amendment.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Question Question before the chambers, adoption of house amendment schedule a. Will you remark on the amendment? Representative Callaghan?

[Rep. Patrick Callahan (108th, New Fairfield/Sherman/Danbury)]: Thank you, mister speaker. As my name is on the amendment, it's certainly considered friendly, and I have no objection to a voice vote.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: If there is no objection to a voice vote, I will try your minds. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the amendment as will you mark further on the bill as amended?

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further? Representative Callaghan.

[Rep. Patrick Callahan (108th, New Fairfield/Sherman/Danbury)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Just a couple of brief questions. I'm not going to painstakingly go through every line.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Briefly proceed. Just a

[Rep. Patrick Callahan (108th, New Fairfield/Sherman/Danbury)]: couple questions. As the way I understand it, it'll just take about a minute to go through it with the good chair. The first on the first section just expands available grants to adjacent areas for environmental justice areas, expands some of the requirements to get cheaper loans.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Also,

[Rep. Patrick Callahan (108th, New Fairfield/Sherman/Danbury)]: gets rid of a couple of defunct loan programs and adds a couple minor words to the Deeps revision bill. And it it's it's really basically fixing some some other errors that were in bills previously. There's there's a bill that was going to require towns to when they pump out their fire hydrants to get trucks to put it into. This this stops that. It requires it it helps the state when we have a severe drought situation to, you know, close some of the air state areas for burning, all all good public safety common sense stuff. And I I really think it's, I worked so well with the with the good chair to make sure this was this was all good policy for the state. And I I I certainly think it's a good bill to pass.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you. Representative, will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Cresco.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Thank you, mister speaker. I have no questions, for the proponent of the bill. I just in sections one and two, I I just wanna point out we're 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. Thank you to our friends in the finance 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 a 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 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Representative

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Parker. Thank you, mister speaker. Very briefly, just a a few thanks. Such a pleasure to work with our good ranking member on the 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 helps make 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 wanna acknowledge the good member from the Hundred And 36th 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, mister speaker, I move adoption.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? If not, will staff and guests please come

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: to the well of the house?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Will the members please take your seats?

[Speaker 0]: The machine will be opened.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house of representatives voting by role, members of the chamber. The house of representatives voting by role, members of the chamber.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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, Mishima will be locked.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: And the clerk will take the tally.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The clerk will please announce the tally.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five one five three is amended by House aide. Total number voting one forty three. Necessary for passage 72. Those voting a one forty three. Those voting a zero absent up voting eight. The bill is amended. Passes.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The chamber will come back to order. Will the clerk please call calendar number three one three?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 56, calendar three one three, substitute for hospital number 5485, and that concerning supported decision making. Favorite report of human services.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Yeah. Representative Thasten.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Good evening, mister speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and pass it to the bill.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: The question before the chamber is acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill. Representative Daston, you have the floor.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: The clerk is in possession of amendment LCO five six three nine. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment, and I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Will the clerk please call LCO five six three nine, which will be designated House Amendment Schedule A?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House Amendment Schedule A, LCO number 5639 offered by Representative Gilchrist, Representative Nathan,

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you very much, mister chair. As you heard, it is a joint amendment, with the good chair excuse me, 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: 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. Aye. All those opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. Will you remark further on the bill as amended? Representative Case.

[Rep. Jay Case (63rd, Winsted/Goshen/Norfolk)]: Thank you, mister 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will you remark further on the bill as amended?

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: I would like to say one more thing, mister speaker.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Please proceed.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: 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, cochair of the IDD caucus representative Case. This has been a lot of work, and there's still more work to do. And I appreciate the various people out there from the 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.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you, representative. Will staff and guests please come

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: to the well of the house?

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Will members please take your seats? The machine will be opened.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house is voting by roll, members of the chamber. The house is voting by roll, members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Have all members vote? Have all members voted? Yes. Please stay close. Yes. Have all the members voted? Yeah. Please stay close. Thank you. Okay? Have all members voted?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Give it on quick. Lightly wrong.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Shouldn't be locked?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Ask him. I don't know.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Will the clerk please take in us out?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five forty five is as amended by house a. Total number forty one forty three and that's for passage. 72. Those voting eight one forty three. Those voting eight zero f's not 48.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: The bill passed as amended. Clerk, please hold calendar two five one.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page 54, calendar two five one. So it's through house bill number five four six o, an act concerning statewide fire protection. The report of public safety.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Buey, do the floor, sir.

[Rep. Greg Howard (43rd, Stonington/North Stonington)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: I move for acceptance of joint committee to serve a report and passage of the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Questions acceptance of the joint committee to serve a report and pass with the billing and proceed, sir.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Mister Speaker, the Clerk has an amendment, LCO four nine seven five. I'd ask the Clerk please call the amendment and be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister Clerk, please buy LCO four nine seven five market house aye.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House House amendment schedule a LCO four nine seven five offered by Rose Boyd, Rose of DG for a carnival.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may be seated. Was that a boy?

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Mister Speaker, this is a strike all amendment, although it does not substantially change the, contents of the bill. I will speak on the bill afterwards and move adoption.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Questions adoption. Representative Mcgarty, you wanna do the amendment first? You wanna talk? You wanna do the amendment? Yeah. We're gonna take a voice vote. If there's no objection, I see none. I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please do go by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay? Ayes have no adopted. Representative Gordy.

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Thank you, mister speaker. This is a very good bill, and I wanna thank all of the people on the public safety committee that took part in this and this state controller Scanlon for his efforts with the fire service and the health providing benefits to us. The only question I have for you, mister speaker, is section 13. Could you clarify, the lights part of that, please?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister chairman, the lights.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: So we're cleaning up some statutes and 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 personal, which is currently the statute through you, mister speaker.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: Representative Wardy?

[Rep. Gary Turco (27th, Newington) — Vice Chair, General Law]: Through you, mister Figur. Thank you. Good bill, bad good ought to pass.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Staff, guest, vote of the house. GEO in lock. House is voting by roll.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Members of the chamber. House is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If all the members have voted, this should be locked. Will the clerk please take a no stop?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Hospital 5460 is submitted by house eight. Total number 143. Nest number passed 72. Those are already 8. 143. Those are already eight. Go pass, Nevada. Counter 122. 87. Counter 122, house bill number five three three two one, an act concerning the air permits of certain crematories. Favorable party environment.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Chairman of our committee, Rosa Parker.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Good evening, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I move for acceptance of the Tory Committee's favor report and passes

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may proceed.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Mister speaker, the clerk is in possession of an amendment, LCO.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Is it 4327?

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: It is indeed 4327. I ask the court

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: to please call the amendment.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: That'd be granted of leave of

[Rep. Manny Sanchez (24th, New Britain)]: the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Four three two seven. Market House A.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Thank you. Mister speaker, the bill strikes Wait.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Wait. Wait. Wait.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Let's call it. House A LCO 4327, offered by Representative Parker, Representative Kellan. I've received Representative.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Parker' — Environment Committee floor manager]: Mister, 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Okay. We have Representative Callaghan, you wanna remark on the amendment or you wanna adopt it? Adopt. Unless it's adopt, is there objection to a voice vote? If not, I'll try your minds. All those in favor, please say no. Aye. Opposed nay. Ayes have it. No one is adopted. Should I mark the bill as amended? Representative Callaghan?

[Rep. Patrick Callahan (108th, New Fairfield/Sherman/Danbury)]: Just it it's it's good study. It's something that's needed. It's a good bill. Hopefully, it'll help the industry. Thank you.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Staff and guests from the wall of the house. Members take your seats and machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House is voted by roll of members of the chamber. The house voted by roll of members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Have all the members

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: voted?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Yeah. Have all the members voted? Yeah. Please carefully consider your vote and press the button. If all the members have voted, it shouldn't be locked. I'd ask the clerk to please take an announce tally.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five three three one is amended by house eight, total number one forty three. Nestor pass 72. Those voting eight one forty. Those voting eight three. Have some voting eight? Bill passes amended. Two five three. On page 17, calendar two five three hospital number 5493 enact requiring a study to establish a program to provide stipends for the Connecticut Civil Air Patrol. Favorite part of labor?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Wilson, the vice chairman, the good old four six. You're the four,

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: sir. Thank you, mister speaker. I move accept to the joint committee's favorable report. Pass to

[Rep. Anthony Nolan (39th, New London)]: the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Questions acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report. Pass to the bill and proceed.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Question we have adoption on the floor, mister O'Canino. Nice jersey. Thank you, mister speaker. Represent the best country in the world. No doubt. Through through you, mister 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. They that we definitely should be looking at ways to support them. Good way ought to

[Representative (unidentified) 'Winter']: good bill ought to pass.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Care to mark further the bill? If not, Stefan Gessen will go to the wall of the house. Members, take your seats. The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house is voting by roll. Members to the chamber. The house is voting by roll. Members to the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Have all members voted? Have all the members voted?

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: One zero three. Nothing.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Please weigh your decision and press your button. Have all the numbers voted? Please. I was always one I I was always one of those people who would somehow just disappear. I I get it. I I used to sit out there too. I have the same way. I get it. Machine will be locked. Clerk, please, and I'll start.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five four nine three, total of forty one forty three. No, sir. Passes 72 of those who are voting eight, one forty three. Those who are voting eight, zero. Upset up, voting eight. Bill passes. I'd ask the clerk to spell

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: the counter 235. Yep.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page six, calendar

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: yep. Two three five, mister Clark.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: We we skipped one fifty. Page 15, Keller two three five, house bill number five two five zero. An act implementing the recommendation of the Freedom of Information Commission for revisions to the Freedom of Information Act. Fair report of government oversight. Representative Nathan.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. I move for the acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and pass it to the bill.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Questions acceptance of the

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: joint committee's robust bill. You have to leave.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: The clerk is in possession of a an amendment LCO five four five nine. I ask that the clerk call the amendment and I grant to Leo the chamber to summarize.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Let's call five four five nine. We're gonna house.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House. A LCO 54559 offered by representative David. May proceed, madam.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you so much. This just strikes section two in the entirety. With that, I move adoption.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: We got adoption. Is there any more mark on it? Representative Carney from the twenty third, it is a pleasure to welcome you. Alright. You have the pleasure.

[Rep. Devin Carney (23rd, Old Saybrook/Westbrook/Old Lyme/Lyme)]: See you too, mister speaker. I I can't imagine a better Friday night than spent with you and all these wonderful people.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It's better than watching the it's better than watching the Mets, Kearney.

[Rep. Devin Carney (23rd, Old Saybrook/Westbrook/Old Lyme/Lyme)]: True. That's I'll give you that. Well, the Red Sox aren't too good either. So alright. I'll let's go with the amendment. It's a good amendment.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: 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 aye. Closed nay. Ayes have been adopted. Okay. Mark of the bill is amended. Representative Carney?

[Rep. Devin Carney (23rd, Old Saybrook/Westbrook/Old Lyme/Lyme)]: This is the annual FOI bill. It's a good bill, and ought to pass.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Staff and guests come to the wall of the house. Members take their seats. The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House voted by roll. Members of the chamber. House voted by roll. Members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Have all the members voted? Please check the board to make sure your vote isn't properly cast. If all the members have voted

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: We're locked in.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: The machine will be locked. Will the clerk please take an announce tally?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five two five o is amended by house eight, total number one forty two. Nested for passage 72, those voting eight one forty two, those voting eight zero, absolute zero, absolute zero nine.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: All passes amended. Clerk, please vote on calendar four nine five. Chairman Steinmeyer Eight

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: eight forty two. Calendar April. Senate bill number two four six. An act requiring a study of natural gas rates for commercial and agricultural customers. Fairport engineering technology.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Chairman Steinberg, one three six, Westport. Thank you.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Joint committee's favorable report and passage

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: of the bill. Questions accepted.

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Mister 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 They will recommend changes to the rates. I move adoption.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, sir.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It was on Amar from the 140 41st or the floor, madam.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. It's exactly as the chair, explained, and, it's a good bill. It ought to pass.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Staff and guests, roll of the house. Members, have your seats. The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House is voting. My role, members of the chamber. House is voting. My role, members of the chamber. It's all you've got. Three two.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Have all the members voted? Please check the board to make sure vote has been properly cast. If all the members have voted

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Three two nine.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Machine will be locked. Will the clerk please take it now, Sally?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: One second. No. Okay. But it's it's looping current.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Yeah. It's in concurrence.

[Rep. Anthony Nolan (39th, New London)]: You ready there?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Let's go. Announcements. Yeah. Sorry, miss Clark.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Senate bill two four six in concurrence with the senate total, forty one forty three. Nasir passed 72. Those are 48.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: The bill passed in concurrence to the senate. Let's do three two nine, mister Clerk. Three two nine.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page 24. Calendar three two nine, sub through house bill number five five six two, and that concerning various revisions to human service statutes. Favor of our human services.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Chairwoman Gilchrist from the town of West Hartford. You're the floor, madam.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: May proceed, madam.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Mister speaker, the clerk

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: has an amendment, LCO five six nine two. I would ask the clerk to please call the amendment and that I be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister clerk, please call 5692 or mark it house a.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: A. House a also call 5692 offered by repel Gilchrist, senator Lesley. You may proceed, madam.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. This is a strike all amendment that brings together many of the human services priority bills from this year. I move adoption.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Questions adopted. Was it the case you wanna do the amendment or do you wanna 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. Aye. Opposed nay? Ayes. That vote is adopted. Representative Case, you have the four of the bills amended.

[Rep. Jay Case (63rd, Winsted/Goshen/Norfolk)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Sixteen secondtions to this bill. Okay. Bill ought to pass.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Staff and guests, roll of the house. Member take your seats. The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House voted by roll, members of the chamber. House voted by roll, members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Have all the members voted? Please carefully consider how you're gonna 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 and take it now.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five five six two is amended by house eight. Total order one forty three. Nests are passed 72. Those voting eight, one forty three. Those voting eight, zero. Instead of voting eight. Bill passed, amended. Please call 243.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister Clerk, two four

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Age 16. Kaler two forty three. Subtora House bill number five three six two, an act concerning the authority of the state elections enforcement commission and mandatory dismissal of complaints, favor of our government oversight.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: We have a busy committee tonight. Representative Dathan, you're the formative.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and pass

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: it to the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may proceed, madam.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you very much. The there is no amendment this evening. So the question excuse me. I've got my wrong script here. So this is simply a update of a agency bill where we are, changing the timing under section chapter one five one for elections and requires that one year of timing for the completion of SEC SEEC investigations. I move passage.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Question is passage. Representative Carney from Old Stapleton.

[Rep. Devin Carney (23rd, Old Saybrook/Westbrook/Old Lyme/Lyme)]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. And this is a bill that will allow SEC to extend investigations for serious issues like voter fraud. So I would encourage my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you very much, mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, sir. Staff and guests come into the wall of the house. Members take your seats. The machine will be open. The house is voting by roll.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Members of the chamber. The house is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: If 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. Okay.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Thank you, sir.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Let's announce tally, please.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House Bill five three seven two, total of forty one forty two. Nassar, pass 72. Those of eighty eight one forty two. Those of eighty eight zero. Absent of 49.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Bill passes. Let's do two nine seven, please.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page 56, calendar two nine seven, sub through house bill number five three five four. An act concerning Medicaid provider audits. Very important, human services.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Chairman of human services, representative Gilchrist.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Proceed, madam.

[Rep. Kerry Wood (29th, Rocky Hill) — Insurance & Real Estate Chair]: Mister speaker, the clerk has

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: an amendment LCO five five seven nine. I would ask

[Representative (unidentified) 'Foster' — likely Veterans/Environment floor manager]: the clerk to please call

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: the amendment. I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Let's do five five seven nine. Mister clerk, Market House A.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House A, LCO five five seven nine offered by a representative Morrow, a case.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: 5453. Alright. Representative Gilchrist.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. This is a strike all amendment and becomes the underlying bill. I urge adoption.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: On the amendment, representative Morrow, the one hundred and forty forty first. Yep. Take your time.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Yeah. What's the next?

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: I will wait till we adopt the amendment.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Okay. So the question is to adopt. I'm gonna try a voice vote then. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Ayes have amendments adopted. Caremark, the bill is amended. Representative Marr, the bill is amended.

[Rep. Joe Gresko (121st, Stratford) — Deputy Speaker]: You have a formality.

[Rep. Tracy Marra (141st, Darien)]: Thank you so much. This this bill started out with an issue in my my town with Grubbs Pharmacy, but I found it happened in many other health care facilities and in particular pharmacies in which a 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, madam. Representative D'Amico, the twenty first from the town of Farmington.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Thank you very much, mister Figueroa. 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Gilchrist, you're the floor, madam.

[Rep. Lucy Dathan (142nd, Norwalk/New Canaan) — Human Services Chair]: Thank you, mister speaker. Yes. The underlying amendment is a strike call and changes this to an educational piece versus changing, the structure of how audits are done in the

[Rep. Cara Pavalock-D'Amato (77th, Bristol)]: Department of Social Services.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, madam chair. Representative D'Amico.

[Rep. Joe Hoxha (78th, Bristol)]: Thank you, mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Staff and guests come to the wall of the house. Members take the seats. Machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House is voting by roll. Members of the chamber. The house is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: 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 I'll just tell it?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: That's alright. Take your time.

[Representative (unidentified) 'Winter']: Okay. Take your time. Okay.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five three five four is amended by house eight, twelve one forty three, necessary for passage 72. Those voting a one thirty three. Those voting a 10 absent voting eight.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Bill passes amendment. Alright. We're gonna do two five I believe that's a four. Yeah. One could argue it was a nine, but it looks like a four. Two five four.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page 17, calendar two five four. Subs through house bill number five four nine eight. An act concerning revisions to statutes relating to municipal tax collection. Fair report, planning and development.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It's the chairwoman of the P and D committee, representative Camilo Segura, the floor mat.

[Member (unidentified)]: Yes, mister speaker. It's a very tired chairwoman. Madam mister speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favorable report and passage of the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may proceed, madam.

[Member (unidentified)]: Thank you so much. The clerk is in possession of an amendment five four five LCO five four five four. I'd ask the clerk to please call the amendment and that I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister Clerk, if you don't mind, can you please call LCO 5454 or mark it House

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House a, LCO five four five four offered by representative Kevris de Groff. Proceed, madam,

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: madam, as summarization.

[Member (unidentified)]: Thank you so much, mister speaker. The, first part of our amendment is, to ensure that people who live close to the border 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 per chance they miss their tax payment. And finally, there is, a small charter change for towns between twenty and thirty thousand 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, madam chair. Representative Haines,

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: you have the floor.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: Go ahead with the amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Alright. So on on the amendment, let's take representative Koch Kristoff. On the amendment, I see no objection to a voice vote. All those in favor, please hear the voice say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Ayes haven't been stopped. On the bill as amended, representative Haynes.

[Rep. Irene Haines (34th, East Hampton)]: Good bill ought to

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: pass. Stop. And guests come in the wall of the house. Members of your seats, mister Shielberg.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The house voted by roll of members of the chamber. The house voted by roll of members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: If all the members have voted, the machine will be locked.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Yeah. And will the clerk

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: please take it now, Sally?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House bill five forty nine is amended by house eight, total order one forty three, necessary passage 72. Those voted to you one forty three. Those voted to you one

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: forty three. Those voted

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: to zero, representative 48.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Bill passed, amended. And we're gonna move on to calendar five three two.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: On page 47, calendar five three two, substitute for senate bill number two three three is in in concurrence with the Senate as amended by Senate Amendment Schedule A LCO 5,160, and that concerning consumer protections regarding residential solar and energy storage systems. Favorable for general law.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Chair, I recognize representative Lamar, the chairman of the general law committee, the 96th District from the city of New Haven. You're the force sir.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (96th, New Haven/East Haven)]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. Mister speaker, you're the joint committee's fair report and pass to the bill concurrence for the Senate as amended.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: May the best day.

[Rep. Roland Lemar (96th, New Haven/East Haven)]: Thank you very much, mister speaker. Mister speaker, the bill before us protects consumers in a rapidly growing complex market, where high pressure sales and finance agreements have led to numerous consumer complaints, standardizes cooling off periods, requires plain language contracts, and is generally a very pro consumer bill. Let me move adoption. Through you mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: I'm gonna interrupt for one second. Representative Stewart, you're the force, sir. Yep. Gonna hit Representative Stewart out of order. Yep.

[Rep. Bill Buckbee (67th, New Milford)]: Hello?

[Rep. Jonathan Steinberg (136th, Westport) — Energy & Technology Chair]: Mister speaker, I ask that I recuse myself this whole?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: So noted. Yep. So the chamber will stand at ease. Representative Stewart, you will leave the chamber. No problem. Don't go far. Don't go astray. And you officially recused yourself. And now the representative Stewart Stewart, the meet the, record reflect that he has left the chamber. We will continue. I believe representative Lamar had moved adoption on the bill as amended in concurrence with the senate, and it's now representative Titliano's term to speak. You're the floor, sir, the ranking member.

[Rep. David Rutigliano (123rd, Trumbull)]: Thank you, mister speaker. I thought the good chairman did a good job explaining the bill. Good bill ought to pass.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: And staff and guests come into the wall of the house. Members take your seats. The machine will be open.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: The House is voting by roll. Members of the chamber. The House is voting by roll. Members of the chamber.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It's not a circus. It's not a circus. 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.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Senate bill two three three in concurrence with the senate as amended by senate eight. Total no voting one forty two. And as as we're gonna pass 72, those voting eight one forty two. Those voting eight zero f and not voting nine.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It'll pass as amended in concurrence with the senate. Last bill for this evening and will be in calendar two seven five.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Page 19, calendar two seven five, so two for house bill number five four six two, an act concerning noise pollution. Favorable for transportation.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: It is not representative Kevin Brown. Rather, it is representative Marcus Brown, the vice chairman from the city of Bridgeport. You have the floor, sir.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, I move for acceptance of the joint committee's favor report and passage of the bill.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: You may proceed, sir.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, the clerk is in a possession of an amendment LCL five six eight two. I ask the clerk amendment. I'd be granted leave of the chamber to summarize.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Mister Clerk, please call 5682. I'll mark it House A.

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: House A, LCO five six eight two, offered by representative Brown.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Brown, to proceed, sir.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank you, mister speaker. Mister speaker, this is a strike all amendment. The amendment seeks to address noise pollution at an airport and I move adoption.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Hey. We have an amendment. Representative Zulu, 99 East Haven. You're the force, sir.

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: Thank you, mister 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 airing we're nearing the end of the evening, and I just ask your indulgence and your patience for a few minutes while I 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 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 promote proponent of the amendment. Three, mister speaker. My first is through you. Did this amendment or the content of this amendment get a public hearing through you?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Brown.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Thank Thank you, mister speaker. I do not believe it did.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Zulu.

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: Thank you. It's a 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. It's cost will be anywhere between 250,000,001 half of $1,000,000,000. We are contemplating a project that will potentially cost half $1,000,000,000 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 $1,000,000,000. Again, it is a project that is guaranteed to have transformational impacts. I do wanna say one thing. To 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.

[Speaker 0]: First,

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: it'll allocates about $4,000,000 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. Again, how can you contemplate this concept that this makes up for these transformational impacts? I gotta 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 safe buckle your safety belts. If you do move around the chamber, you 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 gonna 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 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 wanna go home, I'm sorry, I can't let that happen. 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 gonna be here for a while. Mister 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 gonna go backwards. This is actually most troubling. Calls for a pilot payment of $4,000,000. Right? 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 $4,000,000 the town of East Haven and pilot money? Through you mister 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?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Brown.

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you mister speaker, the good representative is correct.

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: Representative Zulu. So, let me get this straight. This entity and 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 sounds like a lot has to fall into place to get that funding. And I hate to chuckle but it I'm at the point where I'm incredulous about it. Moving on to the the bond funding incentive. 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 l 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 $40,000,000. Probably double that. Maybe 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 a 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 $40,000,000 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 they are. I substantially doubt that they

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: are.

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: Mister speaker, section one of the bill, as I promised, because again, we're going to go through this line by line.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Brown, please ready yourself. You may proceed, sir.

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: Thank you, mister speaker. Actually, no. We're gonna go to section nine of the bill because that's where the the definitions of this of this begin. In section nine, it discusses, the definition of airport project which is a new, definition to the bill. And I'm just curious, it does it contemplate, if I'm reading it correctly, that a project could also include the acquisition of land outside of the boundaries of the airport if it's required by a permitting agency like a zoning board through you, mister speaker?

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Brown?

[Rep. Marcus Brown (127th, Bridgeport) — Deputy Majority Leader]: Through you mister speaker, the bill does

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: not. Thank you, sir,

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: for your concise answer. Representative Zulu?

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: Thank you to the good proponent for that answer. I'm because I'm looking at lines one fifty and one fifty one 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 permitting 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 about torn apart. 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 look looks like? It's covered in tar and soot and dirt from planes taking off, operating in the vicinity. So these poor people of they're 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 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. 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 happened. 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. Yes. 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 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 Yeah. You're right, mister speaker. You're thinking about it. They fire off that cannon and everything in that house goes all over the place.

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Mark, I gotta do this.

[Rep. Joe Zullo (99th, East Haven)]: You're all laughing. And you wanna know what? It's easy to laugh while you're while you're in here when there isn't a seven thirty seven 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.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Representative Zullo, if you don't mind, we can tell that there is some determination in your voice, and so I'm gonna interrupt you for a second to turn to majority leader if you don't mind, sir. Mister majority leader.

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Thank you, mister speaker. It appears we're not gonna be able to land this plane. And with that, I move. We pass this bill temporarily.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: So ordered. Okay. We that should bring us to the end of our business except for business equipment. Mister Julian, what time tomorrow?

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Five 05:15, everybody should be here so that we can gather at 05:30 for a press conference?

[House IT/Operations staff (unidentified)]: I think 05:30. What? Yeah. Okay. We'll do

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: we've never done a 15, have we?

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Well, I mean, I'm just saying it'd be five It's

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: like a baseball starter.

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: If you say 05:30, people show up at 05:45. So let's Speak

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: up to we'll do 05:30. I think it's gonna be a caucus board. So 05:30PM tomorrow night, we got a lot done today. Thanks everybody for a productive day. 05:30 tomorrow. Okay? Any bids on the clerk's desk?

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: I have favor reports senate bills.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Yeah. That's PM, not AM. Yeah. 05:30PM. Biz on the clerk's desk.

[Rep. Anthony Nolan (39th, New London)]: I I'm gonna run a

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: Favor reports senate bills. Mister Major Leader?

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Thank you, mister speaker. I will we waive a reading of the senate. Favorite reports may be tabled for the calendar.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Without objection, so ordered. I'm gonna stick with you on immediate transmittal if you want.

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Alright. That's what I'm gonna do that next. Mister speaker, I will immediately transmit all items requiring further action to the senate.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Seeing no objection, so ordered. Representative O'Dea.

[Rep. Tom O'Dea (125th, New Canaan)]: Yes, mister speaker. Just an announcement. Former representative Steve Dargan's service is gonna be at the Holy Infant Church tomorrow at ten for anybody that's interested. Thank you very much, mister speaker.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, representative O'Dea. Representative, Yacarino.

[House IT/Operations staff (unidentified)]: Yes, mister speaker. Members miss Fosse has noted. Safe travels. Thank you.

[Deputy Speaker (unidentified, presiding)]: Thank you as always, sir.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: And representative McGee, what do you got?

[Rep. Treneé McGee (116th, West Haven)]: Thank you, mister speaker. The clerk is in possession of members who missed votes and reasons why. Thank you. Good night, everyone.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you, madam. Yep. Good night to

[House Clerk (unidentified)]: you as well. We'll turn it

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: over to Madrilla to bring us home on this Friday night, May first.

[Majority Leader Jason Rojas]: Thank you, mister speaker. 28 bills today, almost 29. And with that, I move we adjourn. Subject to the call of the chair.

[Speaker Matt Ritter]: Thank you. Without objection, so ordered.