Court Opinion

ID: 9757423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:40:09.508748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:39.221384
License: Public Domain

*346Bogdastski, J.
(dissenting). The proper interpretation of General Statutes § 16-344 is not so clear to me as it appears to the majority. In my judgment § 16-344 exempts the defendants from state regulations which apply specifically to transportation but not from an action brought under the Environmental Protection Act of 1971 to enjoin air pollution. I do not believe that the General Assembly meant to exclude railroad passenger service from the environmental obligations which it imposed uniformly throughout the state.
This state entered into the Railroad Passenger Transportation Compact with New York “for the purpose of providing for the continuation and improvement of essential interstate railroad passenger service.” General Statutes § 16-343. The compact authorizes the Connecticut Transportation Authority, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York, to acquire, repair and dispose of railroad assets, to operate railroad passenger service or contract for the operation of that service by others, and to abandon portions of that service, when advisable. General Statutes § 16-343. Neither the compact nor the State Transportation Act, General Statutes §§13b-l— 13b-23, empowers the Connecticut Transportation Authority to assume responsibility for pollution control or environmental protection. Along with the compact the General Assembly enacted General Statutes § 16-344: “Mass transportation and railroad service operated pursuant to this compact or under contract with the Connecticut Transportation Authority shall be exempt from state regulation.”
I agree that the action brought by the town of Greenwich to restrain air pollution under the *347Environmental Protection Act of 1971 falls within the broad category of “state regulation.” But the precise question is whether the control of air pollution from a railroad power plant operated under contract with the Connecticut Transportation Authority is “state regulation” of “mass transportation” or of “railroad service” so as to be prohibited by § 16-344. The regulation of railroad power plant emissions is a function entirely different from the regulation of railroad “transportation” or “service.” Arguably, however, the language of § 16-344 must be construed broadly so as to bring pollution control measures within its scope because such measures may ultimately impinge on passenger service operation. The statute is not completely unambiguous. We must, therefore, seek to ascertain the legislative intent by looking to the policy and the legislative history of § 16-344, to other enactments which bear on its construction, and to relevant features of New York’s enactment of the compact. Cicala v. Administrator, 161 Conn. 362, 365, 288 A.2d 66; United Aircraft Corporation v. International Assn. of Machinists, 161 Conn. 79, 85, 285 A.2d 330; State v. Cataudella, 159 Conn. 544, 552, 271 A.2d 99.
The legislative history does not support a broad reading of the scope of the exemption contained in § 16-344. That section is not a part of the railroad passenger transportation compact itself. The General Assembly enacted § 16-344, together with the present compact, in 1969, simultaneously repealing the original compact of 1967. Public Acts 1969, No. 46. The 1967 compact, which differed from its successor primarily in wording, actually contained an exemption provision. That provision read: “Upon approval of this compact by the United States Congress, railroad passenger service operated pursu*348ant to this compact shall be exempt from federal and state regulation of rates and schedules of service.” Public Acts 1967, No. 474, art. IV § 2.
Significantly, the House and Senate reports do not contain any explanation for the substitution of the general language of § 16-344 for the mor,e specific language of the 1967 exemption provision. The only explanation to be found anywhere in the legislative history of Public Acts 1969, No. 46, for the repeal of the original compact was the necessity to conform the precise language of the Connecticut version with the language of the version which New York had just enacted in 1968. 13 S. Proe., pt. 2, 1969 Sess., p. 787; Hearings before the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation, 1969 Sess., pp. 7, 20. The new exemption provision was not added for that reason, however, because New York did not enact such a provision either in its version of the compact or apart from it. See N.Y. Transp. Law, App. 5, §§ 1-3. Prom all that appears, therefore, § 16-344 was merely a modification of the original exemption provision, designed to assure that state transportation regulations would not interfere with the management of railroad passenger service by the Connecticut Transportation Authority. The original exemption from state regulation of “rates and schedules of service” may have been considered too modest to secure that purpose in view of the manifold aspects of railroad operation. But there is no reason to believe that the General Assembly intended to exempt compact activities from otherwise applicable uniform police power enactments not specially related to transportation.1
*349The broad interpretation of § 16-344 adopted by the majority is implausible as well as unsupported by the legislative history. To be consistent the majority would have to concede that § 16-344 exempts compact activities from a veritable host of statutes. For instance, the construction approved by the majority implies that statutes forbidding discrimination in employment do not apply to compact activities; nor do state fire safety and building codes; nor does the penal code. Those statutes and codes are also forms of “state regulation,” as applicable to compact activities as the public health code and the Environmental Protection Act of 1971. I cannot believe that the General Assembly intended § 16-344 to have such bizarre results. “When a statute is ambiguous in terms and fairly susceptible to two constructions, one of which will avoid an absurd or ridiculous consequence, a court is warranted in assuming that the legislative intent was to attain a rational and sensible result. Sage-Allen Co. v. Wheeler, 119 Conn. 667, 679, 179 A. 195; United States v. Bryan, 339 U.S. 323, 338, 70 S. Ct. 724, 94 L. Ed. 884.” Bridgeport v. Stratford, 142 Conn. 634, 644, 116 A.2d 508.
My view of the proper interpretation of § 16-344 is also buttressed by a comparison with the New York enactment of the compact. New York expressly provided for the nonexemption of compact activities from state regulation: “Metropolitan *350transportation authority shall exercise all the powers and perforin all the duties conferred or imposed upon it pursuant to any provision of the foregoing compact in conformity with .and pursuant to the provisions of title eleven of article five of the public authorities law, as amended [establishing the authority],2 and all other laws of the state of New York governing or regulating its creation, existence and activities.” N.Y. Transp. Law, App. 5, § 2. The New York approach suggests that the goals of the compact can be achieved without construing § 16-344 to exempt compact activities from the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and similar police power enactments which do not pertain specifically to transportation.
Finally, the interpretation which the majority places on § 16-344 conflicts with the obligations which Connecticut assumed in 1967 under the Mid-Atlantic States Air Pollution Control Compact, set out in General Statutes § 19-523. Both Connecticut and New York are signatories to that compact. The compact states that “the signatory parties recognize that the protection and improvement of the quality of their common atmosphere is vested with local, state and national interests, for which they have a joint responsibility.” Accordingly, the compact *351creates an interstate agency, the mid-Atlantic states air pollution control commission, which is empowered to investigate the causes and sources of air pollution, to establish air quality and emissions control standards, and to issue orders to cease and desist from any emissions in violation of its rules. General Statutes § 19-523, art. 3 § 3.1, art. 4 §§ 4.1, 4.3, art. 5 § 5.2. The commission may enforce its orders by bringing an action in “any court of competent jurisdiction.” General Statutes § 19-523, art. 4 § 4.3. The compact further provides that violations of any compact provision or commission regulation or order “shall be punishable as may be provided by statute of any of the signatory parties within which the offense is committed.” General Statutes §19-523, art. 4 §4.5. Lastly, “[ejach signatory party pledges faithful cooperation in the control of air pollution in the region and consistent with such object to enact (or if enacted, to keep in force and where necessary to amend) laws which will: (a) Enable it to secure and maintain standards of air quality at least equal to those prescribed by the commission; fb) accomplish effectively the objectives of this compact, and enable its officers, departments, boards and agents satisfactorily to accomplish the obligations and duties assumed by the party under the terms hereof.” General Statutes § 19-523, art. 6 § 6.2.
I am unwilling to believe that the General Assembly intended to insulate activities under the railroad passenger transportation compact from air pollution controls in contravention of the contrary obligations incurred by Connecticut under the air pollution control compact. The legislature is presumed to intend that its enactments be read in light *352of existing relevant statutes so as to make one consistent body of law. Cicala v. Administrator, 161 Conn. 362, 365, 288 A.2d 66. That presumption is especially strong when a statute may be interpreted to be inconsistent with obligations solemnly undertaken by the state as a party to an interstate compact. Nothing in the specific language of § 16-344 or in its legislative history requires an interpretation of that section which conflicts with the air pollution control compact.
In conclusion, I am persuaded that the exemption from state regulation contained in General Statutes § 16-344 should not be construed to prohibit the suit brought under the Environmental Protection Act of 1971 by the town of Greenwich in this case.
I would find error, set aside the judgment, and remand the case with direction to overrule the demurrer and proceed in accordance with law.

 Elsewhere the General Assembly explicitly limited the availability of exemptions from air pollution regulations. General Statutes § 19-519 states: “Any person who owns or is in control of any *349plant . . . may apply . . . for a permit granting an exemption . . . from regulations . . . governing the quality, nature, duration or extent of discharges of air pollutants. . . . The commissioner may grant such permit if he finds that the discharges ... do not constitute a danger to public health or safety, and compliance with the regulations from which exemption is sought would produce practical difficulty or hardship without equal or greater benefits to the public.”

 Title eleven does contain some limited exemptions from regulation for activities of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority; for instance, “local laws, resolutions, ordinances, rules and regulations of a municipality or political subdivision . . . conflicting with this title or any rule or regulation of the authority, shall not be applicable to the activities or operations of the authority, or the facilities of the authority, except such facilities that are devoted to purposes other than transportation purposes. . . . The jurisdiction, supervision, powers and duties of the department of transportation of the state under the transportation law shall not extend to the authority in the exercise of any of its powers under this title.” New York Public Authorities Law § 1266 (8).