HARTFORD, CT — Lawmakers, environmental advocates, and industry representatives clashed over plastic pollution, climate policy, and invasive species Friday during the final scheduled public hearing of the legislative session for the Connecticut General Assembly’s Environment Committee.

The committee heard testimony on 13 bills before the committee. 

Among the most heavily discussed proposals was Senate Bill 452, a proposed ban on the distribution of helium for use in lighter-than-air balloons. The bill aims to address the spread of plastic pollution caused by the release of helium balloons. 

Currently, Connecticut prohibits the intentional release of 10 or more lighter-than-air balloons in one 24 hour period. Some advocates argue the state should adopt a stricter policy.

Robert LaFrance, Connecticut policy director of the National Audubon Society, testified in support of the ban, along with House Bill 5524, which addresses single-use plastics and polystyrene containers in restaurants. 

“Birds are ingesting these plastics, and it’s causing problems in their guts and their nutrition,” LaFrance said during questioning. “It causes choking hazards, but it also reduces their ability to process food in general.”

Several business owners voice their opposition to the legislation. 

Allison Valentine, the owner of a small balloon business, said that “we’re not against environmental protection,” but she clarified that “a ban on helium sales would have a significant impact on our local small businesses.”

Valentine, along with Christopher Edwards, owner of Beach Party Balloons, emphasized the importance of the legislators working collaboratively with balloon companies to find a solution. 

“We think there should be zero tolerance for intentional releases, and we believe that any balloon sold should have a weight before leaving the premises,” Edwards said, meaning that balloons should be weighted before they leave any store to avoid their intentional or unintentional release. 

Other recommendations mentioned included point-of-sale signage and more education.

Katie Dykes, commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), offered mixed views on the bill.

“We appreciate the desire to reduce the risks to wildlife,” she said, “but we do have some concerns with regard to the enforcement of this legislation.”

Beyond plastic pollution, lawmakers also debated the state’s approach to climate costs. SB 453, which would create a 5% climate surcharge on insurance policies covering fossil fuel infrastructure, generated significant discussion. Supporters say the bill would create a financial incentive for fossil fuel companies to invest in more sustainable practices.

Julianna Larue, a Sierra Club organizer and a proponent of the legislation, said it “helps shift some of the financial burden back onto the industries that help contribute to the problem.”

She noted that Connecticut has experienced 11 federally-declared disasters between 2011 and 2024, with damages totalling more than $564 million.

According to Larue, addressing the climate-related causes of such disasters would actually stabilize the insurance industry, reducing the losses to increased natural disasters.

“Investing in resilience reduces those risks and helps ensure that insurance remains available and affordable for Connecticut residents,” she said.

However, Eric George, president of the Insurance Association of Connecticut, warned lawmakers that the bill could have unintended repercussions for consumers. 

“We do not oppose creating a resiliency program,” George said, “but we oppose increasing home and auto insurance to get there.”

George argued that climate adaptation efforts should be funded through the state’s general fund rather than insurance surcharges. Otherwise, he said, insurers would pass the additional costs onto consumers.

Asked about the impact of the increasing frequency of severe storms on insurance premiums, George said it was on one of the things driving up costs.

“In Connecticut, inflation has been a much larger driver in the increase of insurance premiums, as have litigation costs,” George said.

The committee also turned its attention to Connecticut’s waterways, hearing testimony on HB 5525, which would create a rapid response program for aquatic invasive species.

The bill focuses on managing the spread of hydrilla, an invasive aquatic plant affecting Connecticut waterways. The program would rely on DEEP and the Office of Aquatic Invasive Species to coordinate and conduct necessary responses.

Rep. Renee LaMark Muir, D-Deep River, is among the sponsors of the bill. She emphasized the importance of protecting the Connecticut River.

“In my district — Essex, Chester, and Deep River — the Connecticut River is central to our environment, our economy, our history, and our way of life,” she said. 

Without intervention, she warned, invasive plants could continue damaging ecosystems across the state. She estimated that more than 60% of the state’s waterways, lakes, and ponds are infested with an invasive species.

”While Connecticut has begun taking important steps to manage hydrilla, we are far behind our neighboring New England states,” LaMark Muir said. “The longer we wait, the harder and more expensive this problem becomes.”

Dykes said her agency supports the goal of the bill but she raised concerns about feasibility and potential conflicts with Connecticut’s herbicide regulations.

The committee has until March 25 to act on the bills in order to advance them for further debate in the House and Senate.

---