Connecticut’s proposed statewide ban on gas-powered leaf blowers appears unlikely to return in 2027. The next fight is over whether the state should subsidize the switch, and who would pay for it.
Sen. Rick Lopes (D-New Britain) said during an Aug. 4 roundtable that lawmakers are unlikely to pursue a statewide ban during the 2027 legislative session.
“The next year, I don’t see us moving forward on the statewide ban,” Lopes said. “I see us moving forward towards incentives to have both residential and commercial operators move towards at least four-cycle equipment, and definitely towards battery-operated equipment when they can.”
No bill has been drafted and no funding source has been identified. The meeting was a fact-finding roundtable, not a hearing on a specific proposal.
Possible ideas included sales-tax exemptions, accelerated depreciation for businesses and rebates for electric equipment, batteries and charging systems.
That would replace a fight over prohibition with a fight over who gets subsidized — and who gets stuck with the bill.
“We’ll put something forward next session,” Lopes said, “and I’ll start talking to my colleagues about finding money to provide incentives, and we’ll go from there.”
The discussion included landscaping trade associations and a handful of contractors alongside a larger collection of environmental, public health, government and electrification advocates. No gas-equipment manufacturer participated, while battery-equipment manufacturer EGO sent a representative.
Landscaping representatives warned that commercial backpack blowers remain difficult and expensive to replace.
“We support innovation, but not government mandates,” said Mark Kelbacher, president of the Connecticut Environmental Council, which represents several landscaping-related groups. “The market should determine when technology is ready, not government mandates.”
He said commercial crews often work 8 to 10 hours per day and would require multiple batteries, charging systems and possible electrical upgrades.
“Small businesses will hurt the most,” Kelbacher said.
Chris Goodwin of the Connecticut Nursery and Landscape Association said electric hedge trimmers and some string trimmers already perform well, but leaf blowers remain among the most difficult tools to replace.
“We’re really focusing on something that is really hard to make the jump from today,” Goodwin said.
Contractors who had already switched to battery equipment offered a different view.
Stamford landscaper Nelson Munoz said his company’s routine mowers, blowers and trimmers are battery-powered and that his crews still complete the same routes.
“The batteries don’t last too long, but you need to figure out how to work with it,” Munoz said. “But it’s possible.”
Another contractor, David Townsley, said his calculations showed that lower electric operating costs could be overwhelmed by additional labor. He estimated that a leading electric blower had roughly two-thirds the production rate of a top gas model.
“The key metric for a landscaper to adopt new technologies is production rate,” Townsley said. “Everything goes based on production rate.”
Townsley favored tax incentives rather than a ban, including eliminating the sales tax on electric and four-stroke equipment and allowing businesses to deduct purchases more quickly.
Even EGO representative Adrian Torres acknowledged that battery equipment cannot immediately replace gas-powered tools in every commercial application.
“Will battery-powered equipment replace gas-powered application tomorrow? Probably not,” Torres said. “But the industry is moving toward that goal.”
Environmental advocates made clear that incentives are not necessarily the end goal.
“The end goal is to phase out and end the use of gasoline-powered lawn equipment and lawn-care equipment, whenever and wherever we can, and as quickly as we can,” said Chris Phelps, state director of Environment Connecticut.
That leaves lawmakers with two questions for 2027: whether incentives are intended to encourage a voluntary transition or serve as the first step toward a broader phaseout — and who will pay for it.
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) officials said a previous $500,000 equipment-exchange program helped municipalities and school districts replaace older engines but required substantial administrative work.
“Incentives work,” DEEP official Paul Farrell said. “It’s better than command and control in a lot of cases.”
One answer should already be off the table: Connecticut’s public benefits charge.
That concern is not theoretical. An earlier version of this year’s legislation would have used the public benefits charge on electric bills to finance an equipment loan program. Lawmakers later stripped the provision from the bill.
Electric ratepayers should not be forced to buy lawn equipment for homeowners, private landscaping companies or municipalities through another charge buried in their utility bills. If lawmakers believe cleaner lawn equipment provides enough public benefit to justify a subsidy, they should fund it openly through the state budget and defend the expense in public.
Backing away from a ban is sensible. Quietly handing the bill to electric customers would not be.
