A list of controversial clean energy directives will move forward in Massachusetts this year after state lawmakers passed a comprehensive climate bill last night and the governor’s office released new plans.
On Sunday evening, a non-partisan legislative committee announced a compromise on a long-discussed climate package that sets the state’s goal of zeroing CO2 emissions by 2050 with new interim targets every five years. By 2030, emissions should decrease by 50% compared to 1990, followed by a decrease of 75% by 2040. Legislators passed Massachusetts legislation yesterday evening in both chambers by a wide margin.
The emissions regulations are the same as those of at least 11 other states, including the District of Columbia, that already have net-zero laws or informal targets for 2050 or earlier. Governor Charlie Baker (R) has not said whether he would sign the bill, which increases the prospect of a change in demand before the end of the legislature tomorrow – or even a pocket veto on the bill.
However, the legislation contains at least one provision that could improve Massachusetts’ clean energy profile at the national level: new “stretch” codes for buildings that would allow cities to enact net-zero or other emission limits Country-wide codes go beyond the values prescribed in the EU. It would also raise the state’s renewable standard and provide incentives for low-carbon technologies including solar and hydrogen fuel cells.
The language of building codes could pave the way for new bans on the use of natural gas to heat buildings – like a 2019 ban that was passed in the Brookline suburb of Boston before it was knocked down for conflicting with national building codes.
State Senator Michael Barrett, a Democrat who jointly led the bipartisan negotiating team on the bill, said the cities of Boston and Cambridge have expressed an interest in adopting codes that require net-zero emissions for new buildings.
“Brookline is leading the way, but people in bigger, more complex places were the ones we spent most of our time with,” he said.
Jesse Gray, a Brookline official who led work on the 2019 gas ban, said the plan showed that his city had made building electrification policies in the state “politically respectable”. “Surprisingly, and to our delight, the legislation got through faster than expected,” he said.
Builders and fossil fuel trading groups have condemned such gas restrictions as costly and ineffective tools to reduce CO2. American Petroleum Institute spokesmen said they were still checking the details of the bill. But Massachusetts API officials have said in the past that governments “shouldn’t be in a position to deny citizens access to natural gas” and warned that electrical technologies for buildings would have “dire consequences” for vulnerable populations (Energywire , July 24), 2020).
The legislative move came about when at least two other major clean energy policies, both targeting fossil fuels in transport, emerged from Baker’s office in Massachusetts in recent weeks.
A stroke of the pen of the governor made the state part of the Transport and Climate Initiative, a regional program to limit emissions from the transport sector and invest money from companies that buy carbon credits. In a Memorandum of Understanding signed by Baker on December 21, Massachusetts became one of four jurisdictions to participate in the initiative – although nine other states decided not to join on short notice.
This plan was unpopular with left and right-wing groups alike. Environmental groups criticized it as harmful to low-income paint communities and said it would force these areas to bear greater pollution (Climatewire, Dec 22, 2020). And the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, a conservative anti-tax group, called it “bad politics and worse politics.”
In a separate emissions reduction roadmap unveiled last week, Baker’s energy officials also signaled that the state is expected to phase out gas car sales by 2035. This is the target date set by California, the governor of which has directed regulators to prepare by-laws.
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources officials wrote in the document that state law requires that California regulations for vehicle emissions be adopted if they are more stringent than federal standards. “When completed, these California requirements would also apply to vehicles in Massachusetts,” they concluded.
A “big step forward”?
The Massachusetts Legislature’s climate compromise known as “A Bill Establishing a Next Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Change” or p. 2995 would transform the state’s energy sector in several ways.
The state’s renewable portfolio standard would be upgraded, increasing its mandate to 40% by 2030, an increase of 5 percentage points over the existing standard. Utilities would have to buy an additional 2,400 megawatts of offshore wind power, bringing the state’s total spin-off to 5,400 MW, the third largest among the states.
The utility companies would also be given the opportunity to operate pilots and develop geothermal heating and cooling systems to replace natural gas. Hydrogen fuel cell systems would be exempt from local property taxes. And the solar sector would be given new incentives to serve low-income communities and funding to train workers from disadvantaged communities.
These changes would mark the first major update of a 2008 state climate bill that saw an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2050, said Barrett and the other co-chair of the bipartisan committee that brokered the bill’s passage Democratic MP Thomas Golden.
They added that the bill would “accelerate the pace of our collective effort to slow down climate change” and be “the strongest effort of its kind in the country”.
However, the reactions of environmentalists to the publication of the law have been mixed.
Two groups, the Sierra Club and Environment Massachusetts, said the legislation contained important improvements and asked the governor to sign it, but added that the 40% renewable energy standard didn’t go far enough. Both groups supported the procurement of 100% of the electricity from renewable energies.
“Our window to climate action is closing and we must act urgently to achieve a fossil-fuel-free future,” said Jacob Stern, assistant director of the Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Proponents of Vote Solar, a not-for-profit solar energy organization, also called on the governor to be 100% renewable energy but said the bill was “a big step forward” for the state.
The plan is “evidence of the tenacity of our elected leaders and lawyers at this extremely challenging time,” the group said.
In contrast, the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance condemned legislature’s speedy scrutiny of the law after it announced a deal on Sunday yesterday.
“The bill is a wish list for the environmental lobby that is filled with new and future unchecked regulations that will increase energy bills for residents across Massachusetts,” said spokesman Paul Diego Craney.
If the bill were signed by the governor, it would leave many unanswered questions about how the state is actually going to get net-zero carbon from its electricity supply – especially 60% of supplies not covered by the state RPS.
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), natural gas provided two-thirds of the state’s electricity in 2019, and just under 10% came from nuclear sources.
Barrett downplayed the possibility that carbon sequestration would have to play an important role, highlighting offshore wind and Canadian hydropower as important resources. The state is also likely to rely on electricity imported from other parts of New England. According to the EIA, Massachusetts uses about twelve times more energy than the state.
However, Barrett recognized the challenges associated with the transition of the state.
“There is no question that we need new technology,” he said. “I just wouldn’t suggest it has to be one or the other.”