HB 5485 would establish an “Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Coordinating Council” which would assess a “Zero-Emission Vehicle Roadmap.” Based on this language, this legislation is determining a result before the Council it creates has even begun its analysis. 

Related content from Yankee Institute: 

• Connecticut Hits a ‘Speed Bump’ on the Race to Mandate EVs, Wall Street Journal 
• Connecticut does not have ‘overwhelming support’ for vehicle bans, CT Mirror 
• Connecticut Should “Consciously Uncouple” from California Over EV Mandates, Yankee Institute 
• Public Comment to DEEP on EV mandate regulations. 

If passed, a report by the Council on a draft roadmap will be due this November. Some details required in the report are a welcome change to previously proposed electric vehicle mandates. The report would include “benefits and costs” of zero-emission vehicles, how to best build infrastructure that supports electric vehicles, and assess the reliability of electricity generation under greater EV adoption. 

As a public policy think tank, Yankee Institute encourages detailed studies that assess the cumulative impacts of public policy changes. What is concerning about this legislation is the Council's likely bias and its report's intended purpose. 

The Council would consist of 40 members, including: 

• Four appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
• Four appointed by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate 
• Three appointed by the House Majority Leader 
• Three appointed by the Senate Majority Leader 
• Three appointed by the House Minority Leader 
• Three appointed by the Senate Minority Leader 
• The chairpersons and ranking members of joint standing committees 
• Six state agency officials 

Given this composition, it is easy to see why the outcome of the Council’s report will be biased before it has a chance to begin. 

This is reinforced by the title of the Council’s report to assess a seemingly predetermined roadmap. The report could be titled, “Are more lithium leach fields in South America, child labor cobalt mines in Africa, massive increases in local electricity demand, and other negative externalities worth enforcing an electric vehicle mandate in Connecticut that could result in an infinitesimally small reduction in global carbon emissions?” A cumulative benefit-cost analysis along those lines is not likely of interest to proponents of the EV mandate who have settled on this legislation as a temporary compromise.