Lawmakers May Attempt To Override ‘Sooty Six’ Veto

HARTFORD (AP) – The Sooty Six bill may be gone, but it’s definitely not forgotten.

Backers of the controversial clean air bill have been quietly gathering legislative support to try and override Gov John G. Rowland’s recent veto.

The governor struck down the bill last month, calling it well-intentioned but flawed. It was intended to clean up the state’s oldest and dirtiest power plants.

The plants are located in Bridgeport, Milford, Norwalk, New Haven, Middletown and Montville.

State Rep Christopher Caruso, who has spent four years fighting for tougher laws on smokestack emission, said he and others have been polling lawmakers to see if there is enough support to override the governor.

“Our goal is to talk with as many other lawmakers as we can in the days before the veto session,” said Caruso (D-Bridgeport).

To override, 100 votes would be needed in the House and 24 in the Senate. Democrats, who control both chambers, have not attempted to override during the Republican governor’s seven years in office.

“The governor’s action was just a direct slap in the face to anyone with respiratory problems,” Caruso told The Connecticut Post.

Caruso would create rigid standards on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, and thus require better stack controls and the combustion of lower-sulfur fuel oil and coal.

The governor’s office is confident the veto will stand.

“[Rowland] doesn’t believe the votes will be there to override a veto,” said Rowland spokesman Chris Cooper.

But federal and state environmental officials contend the legislation would be less effective than current law.

Susan Studlien, acting director of the EPA’s Region 1 Office of Ecosystem Protection, recommended to Roland that he veto the bill. The recommendation, she said, was not the result of political pressure from the Bush administration but of the flaws her staff found while reviewing it.

She pointed out one provision would have allowed the suspension of emission regulations for up to 30 days in the event of power-production problems on days of peak demand.

“At the very minimum [the bill] would be an administrative nightmare,” she said, referring to monitoring the potential for long-term emissions exemptions.

Some state officials agree.

Carmine DiBattista, chief of the DEP’s bureau of air management, said exemptions under the bill would have allowed for higher-sulfur fuel to be burned at times when ozone levels would be high enough to already create public health advisories.

“This would add pollution loading to an already unhealthy situation,” DiBattista said.