Connecticut Senate Bill SB00023

Connecticut 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/9/12
• Refer: 2/9/12
• Report Pass: 3/28/12
• Refer: 4/5/12
• Report Pass: 4/12/12
• Engrossed: 5/5/12
• Report Pass: 5/6/12
• Chaptered: 5/29/12
• Enrolled: 5/31/12
• Passed: 6/15/12

Caption

An Act Enhancing Emergency Preparedness And Response.

Impact

The bill significantly alters state laws governing utility responsibilities in times of emergency. It establishes explicit standards for how public utilities must perform during such events, particularly in maintaining service reliability and minimizing outages. Additionally, it requires these entities to develop detailed plans for restoring services disrupted by various types of emergencies, thus placing a greater accountability on utility companies to ensure they can support public health and safety effectively during critical times.

Summary

SB00023, also known as An Act Enhancing Emergency Preparedness And Response, focuses on strengthening the state's emergency management framework by ensuring better coordination among civil preparedness efforts at all levels of government. This bill mandates the preparation of a comprehensive civil preparedness plan that integrates state and local agency actions with those of federal and other state governments. It emphasizes the role of the commissioner in overseeing these preparedness programs while allowing for continuous updates to improve responsiveness during emergencies.

Sentiment

Overall sentiment regarding SB00023 appears to be favorable, as legislators recognize the importance of enhancing emergency preparedness and utility response standards. Supporters of the bill commend its proactive measures to safeguard public safety during emergencies, while organizations responsible for infrastructure view it as a necessary update to align with contemporary challenges in disaster response. However, criticisms may linger concerning the feasibility of implementing mandated plans and whether they adequately address local conditions.

Contention

One of the main points of contention revolves around the balance of power between state mandates and local jurisdiction. Some legislators may express concerns about the increased regulation on utilities, fearing that stringent standards might impose additional costs or complicate operational flexibility. The bill also raises questions regarding the effectiveness of the prescribed measures, particularly in the context of varied local emergencies and the need for tailored community responses, which could be overshadowed by a standardized approach.