Leaf Blower Ban Could Destroy Small Businesses, Landscaper Says
Inside a Connecticut legislative hearing room, Michael Sennello, owner of Western CT Pro Turf, told lawmakers that a proposed ban on gas-powered leaf blower equipment could put his one-employee company out of work. “I’m the little guy, ” he said, and described why he believes current battery alternatives for a leaf blower just aren’t up to the demands of commercial landscaping.
Leaf Blower ban and the cost to small operators
Sennello laid out a tight, practical case: commercial crews need hours of runtime and steady power, especially during peak fall cleanup. “The battery power blowers I have extensive experience using just aren’t even remotely close, ” he said. He estimated replacement costs at a minimum of $1, 300 per blower and warned that trucks would require costly charging retrofits — “tens of thousands per truck” — to carry the additional batteries and banks needed for a full workday. He warned the proposal could force firms like his out of business if they cannot absorb those capital costs or pass them on to customers.
What lawmakers, advocates and agencies are saying
Senate Bill 319 would phase out gas-powered handheld and backpack equipment: the proposal would prohibit the sale of gas-powered leaf blowers beginning in 2029 and ban their use statewide by 2030. Supporters point to public health and local air quality gains. Ruth Canovi, advocacy director for the American Lung Association, said, “By advancing this legislation, Connecticut has an opportunity to prioritize healthy air and protect public health. “
Opponents and some state agencies raised fiscal and operational concerns. Garrett T. Eucalitto, Commissioner of the Department of Transportation, said the bill would impose ongoing costs on the state and on electric ratepayers in the public benefits charge, and that upfront capital costs would fall to the state and its contractors. Rep. Rick Lopes (D-New Britain), who chaired the committee hearing, said lawmakers would continue working on the bill and that there was “no desire in this bill to make it onerous on small business owners. ” State Rep. Dave Yaccarino (R-North Haven) argued the proposal “takes away choice” from residents and contractors.
Practical trade-offs, local rules and the unanswered questions
Environmental and community groups emphasize reduced noise and emissions; some testimony noted the smog-forming emissions from gas-powered small engines. At the same time, the CT Environmental Council’s Peter Gorman said, “Battery powered equipment can not provide the same performance, productivity, and reliability as gas powered equipment, ” and flagged worries about storm cleanup during power outages and battery storage, maintenance and disposal.
Several Connecticut municipalities already regulate gas-powered equipment, including Stamford, Greenwich, Norwalk and Westport, illustrating a patchwork of local responses even as the state considers a statewide phaseout. The bill proposes using funds from the state’s Public Benefits Charge to help finance the transition to battery-powered lawn equipment, a financing choice that Sennello warned could raise electric rates for ratepayers like himself.
Returning to the hearing room
Sennello closed his testimony with a direct appeal about survival and fairness: “Let me tell you how Senate Bill 319 affects me. ” His clip of the exchange drew attention after the committee chair characterized the testimony in a way some found flippant, and other lawmakers urged that small business concerns be taken seriously. The bill frames a clear trade-off between cleaner air and operational burdens on small landscapers; what remains unresolved is whether the transition plan will bridge that gap in time for operators who say their livelihoods depend on equipment that, they contend, battery alternatives cannot yet match.
