Baker submits amendments to climate change bill

Doug Fraser   Cape Cod Times

Published Feb 9, 2021 

State legislators are now mulling over Gov. Charlie Baker’s amendments to their climate change bill that he returned to them over the weekend.

Baker did not sign the original bill that landed on his desk at the tail end of the legislative session last month, and lawmakers refiled the bill at the end of January with no changes.

“This reflects the great work we’ve done with the Legislature working in a collaborative environment over the last three weeks to strengthen our efforts to tackle climate change while protecting families,” said state Secretary of Energy and the Environment Kathleen Theoharides, who called the collaboration a “very productive conversation.”

State Sen. Julian Cyr, D-Truro, however, was not pleased with amendments that he felt weakened accountability.

"(T)he Legislature established benchmarks to hold the Commonwealth's executive branch accountable to reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. We set these standards high to fend off the existential threat that climate change poses to communities like ours," Cyr said.

Initially, Baker complained he was rushed into signing the bill without time to make his own amendments. His administration both lauded the intent of the bill while criticizing it for potentially causing too much economic pain for too little gain over what was proposed in its own plan.

In his letter to legislators Sunday, Baker thanked them for their work and for giving him the opportunity to make amendments. His administration had initially been critical of the climate change bill for increasing the emissions reduction benchmark to 50% by 2030 instead of the 45% they had recommended.

In a prior interview, Theoharides said the additional 5% required a lot more effort, including hundreds of thousands more electric vehicles, a new low-carbon fuel standard that was far tougher than any in the U.S., and completely eliminated petroleum-based heating fuels.

In his amendments, Baker proposed a compromise of between 45% and 50% emissions reductions by 2030, with the exact amount set by the administration, depending on the level of technological advances that could provide for greater emissions reductions. The 2040 target was amended to a goal of between 65% and 75%.

“It is a legally binding target that sets you up for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but makes it not overly costly for the Commonwealth,” Theoharides said.

Other amendments included a compromise on the goal for the procurement of offshore wind. Baker proposed the state authorize up to 4,000 megawatts of power from offshore wind farms, 800 more than the 3,200 megawatts proposed by the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2008. Legislators had proposed adding 2,400 megawatts.

Baker also proposed an amendment to imposing emissions limits on sectors of the economy like transportation and building. Instead of a strict limit, his amendment makes the emissions reduction a target to be used for planning, provided the overall emission reduction goal is met. Theoharides said this will give some flexibility to the process if some sectors can achieve greater emissions reductions due to technological advances while others find it harder to comply.

Worried about the impact on affordable housing of a so-called “stretch” building code in the original bill that required new homes to have net-zero emissions on affordable housing, Baker’s amendments stressed energy-efficiency. Transition to a new code would be overseen by the state Department of Energy Resources and would not be mandatory until 2028.

Theoharides said the administration agreed with much of what the legislators proposed on environmental justice and decided to strengthen it by adding that the Department of Environmental Protection, when permitting certain projects, take into account the cumulative environmental impacts on the community of other projects. 

“If you are permitting projects in areas with existing pollution, and you are adding to that, it is unlikely to be able to be permitted,” Theoharides said.

“We believe the administration went in good faith and was really thoughtful about how they prepared the amendments,” said Caitlin Peale Sloane, senior attorney and interim director of the Massachusetts Conservation Law Foundation. 

But Sloane was concerned about the language in the proposed amendments, particularly in making emissions reductions “limits” instead of a minimum. She believed that industry should be shooting for a target that will deal with the emissions and climate change problem, not one that is believed to be technologically feasible. Hard goals inspire innovation, she believes.

“Industry will step up and adapt to meet them,” Sloane said.

Sloane worried about delaying the implementation of a new building code until 2028. 

“The Governor’s own clean energy climate plan makes it clear that you are at a cost parity to build a net-zero house vs. a new house that uses fossil fuels,” she said. It’s more expensive to retrofit a home with fossil fuel heating systems than to build a clean energy home, Sloane said.

“The technology is out there for both market-value and affordable homes,” she said.

"I hope a compromise can be reached that reconciles the concerns of the administration, but the bill is actionable as written and urgently needs to become law," Cyr said.