Baker, lawmakers lock horns again over climate change bill

Doug Fraser Cape Cod Times 

Published Jan 26, 2021

BOSTON – Legislators will vote Thursday to approve the same sweeping climate change bill that was vetoed by Gov. Charlie Baker two weeks ago.

Baker refused to sign the bill Jan. 15, citing concerns over the economic hardship higher emissions reductions could cause state residents and businesses. He was also skeptical that some renewable energy goals could be achieved, and said building-code changes in the bill would depress the industry and hamper efforts to build affordable housing. 

“There is strong agreement from the governor with the Legislature’s goals to address climate change as aggressively as we can and maintain the leadership role we have had in Massachusetts,” Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs, told the Times Tuesday. 

Gov. Baker’s plan released on Dec. 30 was based on two years of analysis, she said, and set emissions goals based on science and cost-effectiveness. 

Two weeks ago, Baker said the bill landed on his desk at the close of the last legislative session and left him no time to make amendments. It’s likely there will be amendments this time, but the House and Senate passed the climate bill by overwhelming majorities, enough to override amendments or the governor’s veto, should he use it.

“I am expecting a unanimous or near-unanimous vote again this week,” said State Rep. Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown, who thinks Baker will return the bill with amendments to the Legislature.

“At this time, I certainly have no appetite to take up any of his amendments that may slow down the implementation of this bill and slow us down in getting to net-zero (greenhouse gas emissions by 2050),” Peake said. “All of us who live here on the Cape see the realities of climate change happening before our very eyes. …There is a clear cost to not addressing climate change as quickly as possible.”

While there has been pointed criticism of Gov. Baker from legislators and environmentalists for not signing the climate change bill, it’s not like he’s a climate change denier.

Last month, his administration released its own plan to reach climate change goals that included a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. This included retrofitting one million of the state’s 3 million homes to use electricity for heating and cooling, and electrifying the transportation sector, including the state fleet of 750,000 electric vehicles, by 2030. The state would also add 2,000 additional megawatts of renewable energy beyond what is already in the pipeline to power that change.

The Legislature’s bill, known as the Next-Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy, set more ambitious goals, including a target of 50% emissions reductions from 1990 levels and 75% by 2040, with status checks at five-year intervals.

It also boosted goals for offshore wind by 2,400 megawatts to a total of 5,600 megawatts. For context, the 800 megawatt Vineyard Wind utility-scale wind farm will generate enough electricity to power 400,000 homes and businesses.

The climate bill sets safety and accountability measures for the natural gas industry, including leaks and infrastructure, and environmental justice provisions for low- to middle-income communities that have suffered inequitably from climate change impacts and solutions. 

One of the main points of contention is the 5% of additional emission reductions by 2030 in the Legislature’s bill, which is beyond what Baker proposed.

Theoharides said that while it seemed like a small amount, it actually required heavy lifting, including an additional 400,000 electric vehicles, a new low-carbon fuel standard 50% tougher than any in the U.S., completely eliminating petroleum-based fuel oil for heating and adding 2,000 megawatts in clean energy.

She said the Legislature’s higher emission reduction goal didn’t allow for homeowners and businesses to take advantage of stock rollover, naturally retiring old equipment. She estimated the higher emission target would cost $6 billion and would be borne by taxpayers, businesses, vehicle owners and homeowners. 

Theoharides was also critical of the new building codes that require new structures to meet net-zero for emissions, while the governor’s proposal worked on making existing and new buildings as energy efficient as possible while preparing to switch to clean energy. 

“It’s disappointing that the governor is nitpicking at the margins of legislation,” state Sen. Julian Cyr, D-Truro said. “It will cost the commonwealth, businesses (and) families money, but prior generations have kicked the can down the road and left us with the clearest of choices: We either take action or sentence my generation, my children’s generation, or our grandchildren to a future that is unlivable.”