Climate Bill Summary - H.5151
On February 26th, the Massachusetts House of Representatives passed a bill addressing energy policy and regulations. It now stands before the Senate. The bill was originally introduced as H.4144 - An Act relative to energy affordability, independence and innovation by Governor Healey. The twin goals of the bill were to reduce energy costs for customers and continue to pursue our climate goals.
The Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy heard the bill and redrafted it as H.4744. At the time, I was strongly opposed to the bill, and the provisions that would strip away the progress on clean energy that I have fought to protect and voted to create throughout my legislative career. It seemed like the revised bill was an attempt to deal with the reality that plans to replace fossil fuels with clean energy appear significantly less likely, because of the actions and inactions of Trump during his first and current terms.
Before heading to the House floor for a vote, it was directed to the House Committee on Ways and Means as is standard. The Committee on Ways and Means worked with experts, advocates, stakeholders, and members to rewrite the bill and issued a new draft, H.5151. The version sent to the House floor for vote was greatly improved from its previous iteration. After hearing from many constituents regarding the bill, I want to take a moment to discuss the changes in each version of the energy bill. I am proud of the votes I’ve taken to help make Massachusetts a national leader in clean energy, and this bill is the latest step we have taken for that goal.
The following items are some of the highlights regarding what was in H.4144 and removed by the House Ways and Means Committee:
Substantively Changing The Mass Save Program
The previous version of the bill would have detached the Mass Save program from its greenhouse gas reduction goals. It would have taken away Mass Save design funds, such that new construction or major renovation projects in municipalities that participate in the “municipal fossil fuel-free demonstration program.” Those projects would have been unable to acquire incentives for electric residential home construction. None of this was included in H.5151.
Renewable Energy Standard Portfolio/ Alternative Compliance Rate Payments
H.4744 would have decreased Massachusetts Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) from 3% to 1% which would have decreased savings for rate payers and lessened pressure for companies to work on their carbon footprint. This change to RPS was not included in H.5151.
Redundant Affordability Testing
A section in the previous version of the bill would have created a broad and subjective customer bill impact assessment on costs from clean energy programs and emissions reductions that would have increased costs and dissuaded renewable energy sources. This was not included in H.5151.
Charging Electricity Customers to Fund New Gas Pipeline Infrastructure
A section in the previous version of the bill would have passed along the cost of new gas pipelines to consumers and would have been detrimental to the environment and our legislated climate goals. This was not included in H.5151.
These were all provisions that I opposed the changes in H4744 and I was pleased that the proposed changes were not included in the revised bill.
In addition to removing troublesome provisions, the House Ways and Means bill included many positive impacts that I support. I appreciate that the threat that climate change has on society and feel a responsibility to make sure that we are doing everything we can to combat it. Throughout my tenure, I have always championed environmental issues and I will continue to do so.
My colleagues and I pushed for policies that would benefit rate payers and the climate to be included in the newest version of the bill. Some examples are:
Clean energy procurement authority
The bill directs Massachusetts Department of Energy (DOER) to create a resource solicitation plan with targets of 10GW of solar and 10GW of wind.
Retail storage incentives
Directs utilities to come up with retail storage incentive programs in a similar manner to what MLPs already have, where they enter into agreements with storage projects to provide peak-shaving during summer and winter peaks.
Municipal net metering caps
Raises municipal net metering caps from 10MW to 20MW, allowing for more deployment of solar that saves money during summer peaks.
Flexible interconnection and surplus interconnection service
Directs DOER and utilities to give priority to proposals that use our existing infrastructure well, connecting storage and solar where there’s existing grid capacity and allowing utilities to enter into agreements where they sporadically use storage or clean energy during high demand periods. Both save money by ensuring we don’t have to “overbuild” for new projects to increase grid capacity.
Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) oversight of large transmission
Creates a lane for large-scale transmission projects to go through EFSB review through consolidated permitting. Currently, there are federal approvals and Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Office (MEPA) reviews for these projects, but no one looks at whether the projects are actually a good use of ratepayer dollars and this would empower EFSB to review proposed transmission projects for their efficiency/cost impacts.
Utility management audits
Gives the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) authority to audit utilities for their operational/administrative functions, to ensure that they’re not wasting ratepayer money on processes that could be streamlined.
Reforms to competitive electric supply
Proposes new reforms to the competitive electric supply market, which will increase consumer protections and make it easier for the Attorney General (AG) and DPU to go after bad actors. HWM also added in a municipal opt-out provision where cities and towns can individually ban competitive supply, which is a big step forward.
Automated permitting for solar
The requirement for municipalities to utilize automated permitting software for small-scale residential solar, which is already a free and available technology, will reduce costs and speed up timelines for deployment of rooftop solar projects.
Balcony solar
Enabling language to make “balcony solar,” a common product offering in Europe where individual residential customers can purchase a solar array that plugs into standard wall outlets, will provide a key tool for ratepayers to reduce their own energy burdens and increase the supply of renewables.
Reduces net metering credit amounts
This will reduce surcharges on electric bills.
Discounted rates for low-income customers and some moderate-income customers
Requires distribution and gas companies to provide low-income customers and eligible moderate-income customers with reduced rates.
Limits rate changes
Requires that any residential default service rates cannot be changed more often than every 6 months.
Data Centers Limits
We adopted an amendment (Consolidated amendment C, I voted yes) to require data centers, if they come to Massachusetts, to pay a separate rate for their energy so that they do not drive up costs for consumers.
Solar Amendment
I also cosponsored a successful amendment to make clear that approved public contractors can install solar, enabling building-by-building installations. Addressing this administrative barrier can unlock tens of millions of dollars in private investment and reduce public housing operating costs without any new public spending.
MassSave Provision
There was a provision in the bill about which I had mixed feelings that went to short-term affordability about which I heard from constituents who are struggling. On bills, people pay a special charge for energy efficiency. This money funds the Commonwealth’s MassSave program. My family has had positive experiences with MassSave and studies have shown that every dollar paid into MassSave generates a return of $2.69.
At the same time, I heard a chorus of complaints about how the program is run and who benefits versus who pays (poorer individuals pay a greater percentage than they receive in benefits). It is clear to me that the program needs to be reformed. The bill proposed to temporarily suspend deductions for MassSave from people’s bills and have the Inspector General investigate the program and quickly issue a report of recommendations on how it could be improved. These provisions will allow us to create a better program and provide people a financial break on their bills in the meantime. There was an amendment to delete this provision of the bill entirely and I voted no on the amendment (113). There was another amendment (71), which I supported and co-sponsored, that tried to lessen the cut, but it ultimately failed.
If this provision remains in the bill, the MassSave program after this cut and a separate cut by the Governor, will still be one of the largest energy efficiency programs in the country and the largest program per capita in the country. MassSave will remain one of the largest programs that we use public dollars to fund in the Commonwealth. Massachusetts remains committed to energy efficiency.
This provision will save people at least 5% on their bills immediately upon the bill becoming law, if this provision is included in a final bill in agreement with the Senate. For some, the savings will be much greater.
I supported other amendments that did not succeed. One that would have prohibited utilities from shifting the costs of seeking rate increases (such as legal costs) to customers and another that would have made it easier to permit solar.
Republican Amendments
Finally, there were a large number of amendments to undermine our clean energy goals, I am proud to have voted against those amendments. I’ve highlighted a few below but the full list can be found here.
Amendment 7 would have made 3- year emission goals non-binding and non-enforceable. I voted no.
Amendment 38 would have removed a provision that set a target of 10GW of wind and 10GW of solar in DOER’s resource solicitation plans. I voted no.
Amendment 78 would have delayed the adoption or enforcement of motor vehicle emission standards for 5 years. I voted no.
I remain committed to protecting and advancing clean energy in Massachusetts, and I will continue to push for legislation that strengthens our progress while confronting the reality of how the Trump Administration is undermining our efforts. As I mentioned in the beginning, the bill moves onto the Senate.