By Bob Katzen
The Senate 38-2, approved and sent to the House climate legislation that supporters say will make systemic changes to the state’s clean energy infrastructure that will help the state achieve its net zero emissions by 2050 goals. They say it will also expand electric vehicle use and infrastructure and protect residents and ratepayers.
The bill would ban competitive energy suppliers from enrolling new individual residential customers – a move that supporters say will save residents’ money and protect residents from unfair and deceptive practices.
Other provisions would lower utility rates for consumers with low- and middle-incomes by directing utility providers to offer lower rates to eligible consumers; consolidate the review of clean energy siting and permitting and expedite the timeline of projects; extend through 2027 the state’s MOR-EV program which gives residents $3,500-$6,000 for the purchase of new or used electric vehicles; allow residents who own parcels within condominiums, homeowner associations and historic districts to install EV chargers; make it easier to decarbonize buildings across the state; modernize the ‘bottle bill’ by adding noncarbonated beverages, wine and spirits to the list of containers eligible for a bottle deposit and increasing the deposit amount from 5 cents to 10 cents; and rein in a statutory provision that for decades has given gas companies a preferential ratemaking advantage over providers of other heating sources.
“Today’s vote isn’t just a step toward reaching our net-zero emissions mandate,” said Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), Chair of the Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. “It’s a leap toward a greener, cleaner future. The gas system reforms in the Senate climate bill make Massachusetts the national leader in the transition from gas to clean forms of heating, and they also protect residents’ wallets.”
“We are in a climate crisis,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “The Senate has heard loud and clear from residents, advocates and clean energy leaders that we need systemic infrastructure changes to deliver on our net zero by 2050 emissions goals. Today we are taking action to make it easier and more efficient to build clean energy infrastructure so that Massachusetts can deliver on our climate commitments and leave our kids with the green state and planet that they deserve.”
“Mass Audubon is proud that our legislative climate and energy leaders and the Healey Administration have delivered an omnibus climate bill which reflects so many of the recommendations of the Commission on Clean Energy Infrastructure Siting and Permitting,” said Michelle Manion, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy at Mass Audubon. “[The bill] accelerates clean energy while also recognizing the importance of nature – our forests, wetlands and farms – in the climate fight, and that our towns and cities are essential partners in delivering on the solution set. This bill is the commonwealth’s next best step in addressing the climate crisis.”
“The Massachusetts Senate has approached this legislation like Don Quixote, mistaking natural gas as an enemy worth eliminating when instead it should be considered a useful ally,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) who voted against the bill. “This legislation not only severely undercuts the use of natural gas, it fails to address the cost of electricity in the commonwealth which is currently ranked as the fourth highest in the nation. If you love paying higher costs for electricity year after year, you’ll love this Senate legislation.”
Fattman continued, “While more than half of Massachusetts households rely on natural gas for heating their homes and cooking their food, this legislation all but eliminates that possibility without providing a clear path on making other energy sources achievable, accessible and affordable. We are not prepared to implement these vast changes to our energy sector and a lack of preparation will, no doubt, lead to chaos down the road.”
Sen. Peter Durant (R-Spencer) the only other senator who voted against the bill, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to comment on the bill and his vote.
(A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.)
Sen. Patricia Jehlen Yes