Latest news with #SenateBill78
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Big solar array in small CT town illustrates contention over Siting Council
Along remote Pompeo Road deep in the woods of rural Thompson, Sandra and Noah Sarucia started a bed and breakfast a few years ago with the idea of attracting guests drawn to scenic, unspoiled views. But C-Tec Solar LLC's plan to clear part of a nearby woodland to install a large solar panel array changes all of that, the Sarucias say. 'We have a small BnB business on our property that relies on the scenic road look and feel to attract customers,' Noah Sarucia told The Courant. The Sarucias were dismayed when the Connecticut Siting Council authorized the project earlier this month, and said all Connecticut residents should know that the council can make such decisions regardless of local opposition or community opinion. They're not saying whether they will challenge the decision in court, but noted that residents in numerous towns have been pursuing appeals in recent years. 'We believe that the Siting Council has unchecked power as seen by so many appeals being submitted across the state by folks just like us who weren't given proper notice nor proper information about how to participate in the objection of such irrevocable decisions,' Noah Sarucia wrote. They are not alone in their frustration: At least a dozen individuals, companies and towns have sued the Siting Council over the past four years, challenging its approval of battery power storage farms, high-voltage power lines, cell towers and solar arrays. Just four weeks ago, Granby filed suit against the council for authorizing Key Capture Energy's plan for a 5-megawatt battery energy storage facility not far from the Salmon Brook; the town contends the council didn't give enough weight to evidence of environmental and safety hazards. So far, court appeals against the Siting Council have a poor record of success. The courts have mostly ruled upheld the council's decisions, noting that state law deliberately designed it to make decisions in the best interest of all Connecticut power customers and utility users — with freedom from obeying preferences of neighbors or the local community. But state lawmakers have been looking for ways to give citizens and communities more of a voice in the decisions, and are focusing efforts this spring on Senate Bill 78. It would require the Siting Council to include a representative from the community where a proposed facility would be located; the mayor or first selectman would be responsible for appointing that person. The local representative wouldn't get a vote, but could deliberate with the council's voting members. Currently the council is made up of a representative from the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, a designee from the state House speaker and another from the Senate president, and five public members appointed by the governor. In testimony to the Environment Committee last month, Fairfield resident Mary Hogue urged support for the bill. 'These decisions are long lasting, if not forever changes to the landscape and infrastructure of the area. In Fairfield and Bridgeport we are currently dealing with an issue that should have included the citizens along the route of the EDC monopole project so that we would not be at this impasse,' Hogue said. 'Let's learn from this and include more transparency and citizen participation.' Rachel Briggs, staff attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation, said her organization supports the bill, but wants other changes, too. 'Many community members do not find out about proposed projects until it is too late for them to fully participate in the process. Improving notice is a key way the council can improve public involvement and the quality of decisions,' she told legislators at a hearing. The foundation wants the council to notify the public at least 30 days before public hearings, and to use social media, local news media, municipal websites and signs at the proposed project site to do it. In addition, the council should enable residents to sign up for email notices of any proposed project in their town, she said. Betsy Gara, executive director of the Council of Small Towns, also wants the bill to authorize the Siting Council to consider the number of energy facilities already in a community so that no town gets overburdened. 'Although we recognize the importance of the Siting Council process in advancing the state's energy goals, COST remains concerned that the council is approving several facilities in a handful of towns which is placing a disproportionate burden on these communities,' she wrote. But in testimony to the Environment Committee, Gov. Ned Lamont said the bill should fail. 'The Siting Council is a critical statewide body that ensures consistent siting practices for statewide infrastructure. Ultimately, the Siting Council regime ensures that all Connecticut residents can benefit from statewide infrastructure,' he said. 'Municipal participation in Siting Council proceedings is already extensive … disturbing the consistency of the Siting Council's approach will inhibit Connecticut's response to climate change.'
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kansas House follows Senate's lead on bill intervening in college, university accreditation
Rep. Jerry Stogsdill, D-Prairie Village, said a Senate bill given first-round approval Monday by the House would unnecessarily require the Kansas Legislature to micromanage accreditation of academic programs at public and private colleges and universities throughout the state. (Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — The Kansas House delivered preliminary approval Monday on legislation forbidding external postsecondary educational organizations from compelling a Kansas public and private college or university to violate state law in order to receive full accreditation. The bill previously passed by the Kansas Senate was championed by two out-of-state, conservative organizations lobbying to convince states to move higher education away from certain ideologies, programs or expenditures. One area in which Senate Bill 78 could come into play would be if Kansas enforced a prohibition on programs tied to diversity, equity and inclusion that were traditionally a factor in college or university accreditation reviews. 'This bill would prohibit accrediting agencies or an association from compelling an institution to violate state law,' said Rep. Sherri Brantley, R-Hoisington. If the bill revised by a House committee earned the minimum 63 votes for passage in the House, the new version would need to be affirmed by the Senate before forwarded to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly. It passed the Senate on a vote of 32-8 in February. The legislation would give colleges, universities, community colleges and municipal institutions until Dec. 31 to review and update accreditation policies and practices. Accreditation associations and agencies eligible to do reviews in Kansas would have to be selected from a list maintained by the U.S. Department of Education, which President Donald Trump has indicated he would seek to eliminate. The bill would grant Kansas higher education institutions authority to file lawsuits against associations or organizations that took adverse actions against a postsecondary institution that sought to abide by state law — assuming the relevant Kansas statute wasn't preempted by federal law. Rep. Jerry Stogsdill, D-Prairie Village, said the legislation was unnecessary because the Kansas Board of Regents, which has control of state universities and oversight of community college and technical colleges, possessed authority to insist accreditation adhere to the law. He said there had been discussion about bringing forward a separate bill that could render the accreditation legislation 'egregious.' The Senate Ways and Means Committee proposed withholding $2 million from the Kansas Department of Administration and $2 million from the governor's office until it was affirmed DEI programs had been eradicated from certain executive branch agencies. Rep. Linda Featherston, D-Overland Park, said the House and Senate could potentially withhold state funding from colleges or universities declared noncompliant with Senate Bill 78. 'That would put colleges, universities, medical centers in danger of either accepting an accrediting body that isn't recognized by others or losing their state funding,' she said. 'I feel this bill is the slippery slope to seeing all our mental health programs in Kansas — to seeing our social worker programs — go without accreditation.'
