By Bob Katzen

The Senate 38-2, approved and sent to the House climate/energy 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. A House-Senate conference committee drafted the compromise version to resolve the differences in the competing versions approved by the House and Senate earlier this year.

Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), the chief Senate sponsor of the bill, chairman of the conference committee that drafted this version of the bill and Senate chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to comment on his long battle to secure passage of this legislation.

“I’m so pleased we finally came to terms with some of the outstanding issues to try to get a bill done and get it to the governor’s desk,” said Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton).” This is a critical issue that is impacting our world, our region, our state. This legislation helps to address some of the climate policy concerns facing the commonwealth. However, there is much more work that needs to be done, and we need to begin that discussion today.”

“This comprehensive climate bill will help us achieve our obligation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 by moving us forward on clean energy siting and permitting, gas system reform, energy storage procurement, electric vehicle charging, embodied carbon, utility resilience, carbon removal and so many other areas of climate policy,” said Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton), the chair of the Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. “The bill also protects ratepayers by preventing investments in gas infrastructure that are wasteful and contrary to our climate mandates.”

“Today the Senate took decisive action to address the climate crisis,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “While achieving the shared goal of reforming siting and permitting so that we can ensure that clean energy projects get approved and built at the rate necessary to meet our state’s ambitious emissions reduction goals, I’m proud to say that the final bill also contains many provisions that the Senate heard were crucial from those who are on-the-ground leading efforts to fight climate change. We are expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure and incentives, addressing the high cost and long life span of gas infrastructure projects as we strive to move towards cleaner energy sources, and protecting rate payers from bearing the costs of this transformational shift. I believe that the months of bipartisan negotiations allowed us to produce a stronger bill for our residents—and for our long-term clean energy future.”

“Today the Massachusetts Senate voted on ‘An Act promoting a clean energy grid, advancing equity and protecting ratepayers,'” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) one of only two senators who voted against the measure. “Ironically, the effect of the bill and the name are at odds. This bill will raise prices of utilities and electric bills for consumers and, in fact, not protect them from rising costs of living in the Commonwealth. Because of these reasons, I voted no on this bill and stand in opposition of legislation that promises to help when in fact it hurts.”

Sen Peter Durant (R-Spencer), the only other senator to vote against the bill, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to explain his opposition to the measure.

The Mass Fiscal Alliance opposed the bill and added that passing such a major and complex bill less than two weeks before Election Day sets a troubling precedent.

“Legislatures across the country should avoid what the Massachusetts State Senate is doing,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for the group. “Rushing through major policy right before an election prioritizes special interests over voters,”

“The Massachusetts Legislature is taking a dangerous turn,” continued Craney. “Whether you support this bill, or oppose it like MassFiscal does, it should concern everyone that this behavior sets a new low for how policies are passed. The worst case scenario is that this practice leads to corruption. It wouldn’t be the first time legislative leaders in Massachusetts have faced corruption accusations, and these actions only make it more likely to happen again,” Craney concluded.

(A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.)

Sen. Patricia Jehlen Yes