An Act Concerning The Authority Of The Department Of Energy And Environmental Protection To Modify Or Revoke A Consent Order.
Summary
HB 6455 would amend Connecticut General Statutes section 22a-6dd to limit the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s ability to change or cancel a consent order after it has been entered into. Under the bill, once the commissioner and a party agree to a consent order, the commissioner could not modify or revoke it without the party’s consent. If the consent order involves land remediation, the cleanup requirements and standards could also not be changed unless both sides agree.
The bill also preserves access to court review by allowing either the commissioner or a party to seek declaratory and injunctive relief in Superior Court to resolve disputes over the terms, conditions, or compliance with a consent order. The new rule would apply only to consent orders entered on or after the effective date of the act.
Impact
The bill would narrow DEEP’s administrative discretion over environmental enforcement agreements by making consent orders more binding and harder to alter unilaterally. It would affect parties that enter into consent orders with the agency, especially property owners and responsible parties involved in contaminated land remediation, by giving them greater certainty that agreed cleanup terms will not later be changed by the commissioner. The bill would amend section 22a-6dd and take effect from passage.
Sentiment
The available record suggests the bill was introduced as a committee bill with no recorded debate in the provided materials and a vote-to-draft tally sheet showing no yeas or nays, so there is no clear evidence of broad support or opposition in the transcript record provided. The stated purpose indicates a pro-certainty, pro-enforcement-agreement approach, suggesting support from those who favor holding the agency to its negotiated terms. At the same time, the measure would likely be viewed skeptically by those who want DEEP to retain flexibility to respond to changing environmental conditions or enforcement needs.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between contractual certainty and regulatory flexibility. Supporters are likely to argue that consent orders should be binding and that parties should not face unilateral changes after agreeing to terms, particularly in costly remediation matters. Opponents may argue that DEEP needs authority to modify or revoke orders to protect public health, ensure effective cleanup, or respond to new information, and that limiting that authority could constrain environmental enforcement.