2022-01-11 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
2022-01-11 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
(Part 1 of 2)
[PART 1]
okay.
[REP ROY:] I called this meeting of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, utilities and Energy uh to order today. We're going to be hearing bills on uh consumer protection, environmental justice, public safety security systems, citing towing and some late filed legislation. And35 it's a distinct pleasure to begin the hearing with testimony from his excellency, the governor, charlie baker and with that I'll turn the floor over to you governor.
[GOVERNOR BAKER:] [HB4204] Thank you very much. Chairman Roy and Chairman Barrett and the rest of the committee. I am. I'm pretty excited to be in the hearing room here in the state House. It's all of those of you who are virtually thanks as well for this chance to speak today. I also want to thank the vice chairs, place Chair Mark and Vice chair Pacheco uh, and the rest of the members of the committee for participating today and giving us a chance to speak on House bill 4204, an act of power Massachusetts, Clean energy economy, I think as you all know, Massachusetts as85 a longstanding bipartisan record of national leadership on clean energy and climate change and our administration is92 proud of the strong partnership that we've enjoyed94 with the legislature on these critical issues. That partnership has allowed us to make tremendous progress by setting nation leading emissions reduction targets, building a vibrant clean energy innovation economy here in the commonwealth and pioneering emerging markets like offshore wind and energy storage.
We filed this legislation in October of 2021 so that we can build on the progress we've made together and ensure that at this pivotal moment for our economic recovery and for our environment movement, that Massachusetts has the tools that it needs to remain on the leading edge of climate action in the United States. To that end, this legislation would direct once in a generation we believe game changing investment of $750 million Commonwealth. Additionally, this legislation also makes several important technical changes to our offshore wind procurement process with a focus on bringing more economic development investment and reliable renewable power to the commonwealth. While continuing to keep energy costs down. The legislation is designed to reinforce the commonwealth clean energy economy and to raise our collective ambition for what we can achieve together with the right plan and the rights of investments. Since we filed this legislation several months ago, Massachusetts continued to reach historic new milestones in our efforts to bring more clean energy to our electric grid. Joining me today, is Energy Secretary Katie Theoharides.
Just weeks ago, I've been getting it wrong for three years. Um just weeks ago, her office oversaw the third successful procurement for offshore wind power since our historic legislation passed in 2016, which created the first real pathway to the market for this emerging industry. I want to thank the secretary and her team for their efforts in this third round in which we managed to secure two affordable offshore wind projects totaling 1600 megawatts no energy to power economy and save ratepayers money, but historic economic investments that will create jobs and revitalize communities from the south coast and the North shore. The selection brings the amount of offshore wind procured under the Baker Administration. 2 3 3200 MW. Enough clean electricity to power 1.6 million homes here in the Commonwealth. And of course this includes the first in the nation vineyard wind project that recently started construction254 and will launch the offshore wind industry here in the United States.
These are great accomplishments and our shared leadership on offshore wind is something we should all take enormous pride in. And thanks in many respects to the work that we've done together through this approach, we have a steady pipeline of supply chain and workforce activity in massachusetts that will deliver significant benefits for our environment for our communities and for our ratepayers for decades to come. And when people think of the offshore wind industry, they do think of massachusetts. And many of the leading developers have had located their headquarters here in the commonwealth. We still have much to do. In March of 21 our administration worked with the legislature to pass and sign a nation leading climate legislation bill. It gives massachusetts the most ambitious climate targets in the country over the course of the next 30 years. And this includes the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% below 1990 levels By 2030 and net zero310 emissions by 2050. Those ambitious targets will be a significant continue to rebuild our economy around and energy Thankfully.
Due to the ongoing work that's been done here in Massachusetts. We have the first in the nation 2050 decarbonization roadmap based on over two years of deep scientific analysis to help us chart the course to net zero. With the study in hand, we have a plan to meet our climate goals that includes scaling up our supply of renewable power and transitioning our transportation and building sectors so that they can be powered by that clean electricity as well. Achieving these goals will take significant investment, innovative solutions, diverse equitable and inclusive workforce that's trained and ready to help us build the energy system of the future. That's where the Clean Energy Innovation and Investment Fund can play such a critical role, putting our state in a position to meet these climate targets while jolting our economic recovery out of the pandemic at a time when workforce attrition from378 the commonwealth is a major concern.
This new fund will support the advancement of next generation clean energy technologies including386 research and development to help us develop, grow and retain the390 leading clean energy innovators, institutions and businesses that have emerged here in the commonwealth provides funding to our colleges, universities and vocational technical institutions to develop401 and train the skilled clean energy workforce here in the massachusetts and provide assistance to regional employment boards to ensure the clean energy as a key strategy, as part of their workforce development blueprints. This is all designed to put massachusetts significant future federal support for these initiatives as well. The fund would be administered by the massachusetts Clean Energy Center, which has developed a robust clean energy company, the commonwealth and is well positioned to434 maximize the value of this historic investment.
Now, last month secretary Theoharides and I toured one of the companies that's making a big difference in the clean energy innovation economy here in Massachusetts. It's called six K inc and it's located in North452 end
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
over the microphone a little closer, people are having trouble hearing you out in the stratosphere. Yeah, I'm glad you told me that
um, this company six K in North end over, I would encourage every member of this committee to visit this company firsthand to see the incredible innovative work they're doing to solve for some of the key challenges we face in the battery supply chain. Six K stands for 6000, which represents 6000 degrees the temperature on the surface of the sun. It was spun out of MIT and it's focused on the production of sustainable advanced materials for energy storage batteries, bringing the supply chain for EV batteries back from500 china and making them here in502 a way that is both cheaper and more environmentally friendly than the way the vast majority of them are made across the world currently, Thanks to some early support from mass development, the company has grown and is now investing515 $32 million dollars in a leased space in north end over the company.
The company in massachusetts. But the cost of operating in the commonwealth as we all know, are high. And with this infusion of funding, massachusetts could531 help retain companies like this and ensure that they continue to press forward with innovative storage solutions and other opportunities to drive this piece of our economy forward and keeping jobs and investments here in massachusetts. In addition, the legislation comprehensively refines the current offshore wind procurement process to support economic development and the creation of a diverse equitable, inclusive workforce, incorporate the additional capacity recently authorized by the Climate Bill and transfer transfer the authority for selecting winning bids from the massachusetts utilities to the Department of Energy Resources and finally apply the lessons that have been learned over the course of our administration's nation leading wind Energy procurement efforts.
Offshore wind is obviously a centerpiece of the commonwealth strategy to meet the demand associated with largely with a largely electrified economy.587 Without increasing emissions from the power sector, we're raising the price of electricity. We are currently building the first commercial scale offshore wind project in the country, but without prompt action599 and continued growth600 and evolution, we risk losing our status and this is something we've all talked about as a national leader in this space. The offshore lease areas, their federally available for wind generation are limited and other nearby states are obviously interested in developing these same areas to meet their617 own needs while attracting supply chain development to their state. If we fail to update our procurement process, the commonwealth risks losing the opportunity to compete and win against those other players. And by the way, as we all know, the procurement process we developed here Back in 2016 was certainly novel and unusual and obviously came with risks for everybody involved.
But the subsequent vineyard wind came in at historically low prices and that literally changed the game for offshore wind in the US, leading to652 an explosion of state commitments up and down the east coast. Through our process, we have now secured four projects each at a record low price point far below and industry experts would have predicted five years ago. And while the price cap provisions plays an important role in these early years as the industry was finding its footing and we were all getting a sense for how this was going to work, it's imperative at this point. We believe that we respond to the signals we're seeing in the679 market today, notably even though we removed the price cap for the Commonwealth. 2nd procurement, we were still able to secure a project that offered a lower price than the first selection and thanks to advancements in technology and the competitive structure of our procurement process, offshore wind has become a cost, competitive clean energy solution from Massachusetts and for states up and down the coast.
The price cap does get in the way of our competitiveness and discourages some developers from offering more creative, diverse and comprehensive proposals, removing it would give bidders of flexibility to offer important added benefits to Massachusetts residents including economic investment, job creation and reliability solutions such as transmission and energy storage. As we look to the next phase of our offshore wind strategy. This legislation would also ensure that Massachusetts remains on the leading edge of offshore wind policy in the US by promoting a different procurement process that has equitable economic development and creativity while continuing to ensure that the pricing that's available, saves ratepayers money.
Let me just close by saying that we look forward to continuing to build on this partnership. We here in massachusetts should absolutely take credit for the excitement. We see all over the East Coast and the US, we were first, someone764 always has to go first, but the really great part about this is by being good. When we came out of the gate on this, we created a great opportunity, not just for ourselves, but for everybody else up and down the coast and the more enterprises and the more organizations we get interested in this, The more it creates a flywheel going forward of continuing investment, continuing innovation and continuing adjustments and adaptations that I believe will turn this into something that goes way beyond over time when any of us could have possibly imagined when we worked on past and then went to work on that 2016 legislation Which I remember testifying about right here in this room in 2015. And with that, I want to turn it over to secretary theo charities and thanks again for the chance to be here.
[CHAIR:] Thank you and thank you for coming in line.
[SECRETARY THEOHARIDES (EOEEA):] We're so happy to be here. Live. Thank you governor and good morning. I'm pleased to join you to speak in support of the legislation and act power massachusetts, clean energy economy and to830 provide additional details on some of the provisions in the bill. I'd like to thank the chairman, Roy, chair Barrett, Vice chair Mark, Vice chair Pacheco and the distinguished members of the committee members who are folks who are here to testify
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
closer
as you heard from governor baker, this legislation offers us an opportunity to support the next generation of clean energy innovation in Massachusetts through unprecedented investment, not859 just in clean technology, but in homegrown Massachusetts businesses. The863 governor mentioned six K. There are many businesses like this who are helping us solve our climate challenges the new fund proposed in this legislation. Totaling 750 million is designed to meet this moment. And importantly, it's from a different source of revenue. It's from Arpa so it's not entirely borne by ratepayers here. This is an off ratepayer cost that would support this884 type of innovation. It will also ensure that the commonwealth maintains its leading position as the hub for the offshore wind industry in the United States by implementing some crucial revisions to our procurement process. I'd like to emphasize, we do not propose these changes lightly and one of the reasons we897 have tried to stagger our procurement is so that we can learn from each of them.
Um in addition to the workload that we take on its it's a real opportunity905 for us to dig into the process and learn from each one of them. The 83 C procurement processes, something both the baker Polito administration and the Legislature take a great amount of pride in and should it has delivered fantastic results for offshore wind projects totaling 3200 megawatts of cost922 effective clean power. The first commercial scale project in the nation,926 significant economic investments, including local content and workforce development and ultimately, the creation of a new industry. The 2016 energy bill really changed the game for offshore wind in north America and the market has responded and the changes we propose in this legislation build on that legacy by ensuring our procurement process works as the market evolves so we can take advantage of all it has to offer for people across our state. The principal change, as the governor mentioned, is the removal of the price cap. This provision made sense in 2016 when there was significant concern about the scale and the price of bids we thought would receive. In fact, we thought it would cost ratepayers extra money to procure offshore wind.
But thanks to advancements in technology and a competitive marketplace as well as the capacity of the deepwater resource off our shores, the industry has proven that offshore wind can be cost competitive and deliver actual cost savings to ratepayers in addition to982 all of the benefits it provides. And because we've seen the evolution of the market, we feel now is the right time to adjust our procurement process so we can capture Important additional benefits for Massachusetts. Electric993 companies today is the day when 18% of our electricity load is on oil which is dirty and very expensive and getting additional benefits through a more flexible contract with1006 a price cap that's been lifted for a contract that includes storage that includes hydrogen, that includes better interconnections means that ratepayers across the state will save money not just from the one offshore wind contract, but across the system from the additional benefits more creative contract can provide integrating energy storage, green hydrogen or creative transmission as I1029 said, may add some cost to the project.
However, the flexibility afforded by these solutions can help to displace dirtier, more expensive fuels like gas and oil and peak times like today at the same time by maintaining a significant emphasis on price in the evaluation criteria and the developers need an interest in securing a contract because remember the utilities can decline these contracts that1052 they don't find them to be cost effective, more reasonable. Um, We can continue to ensure competitive, cost effective pricing in future procurement and we saw this when we left at the price cap in 2019, we saw the best, the best prices we've gotten to date still come in in that bit. The legislation would also make important changes to the selection committee. The current 83C process is robust and has led to the successful evaluation and selection of four competitive offshore wind projects and to successful contract negotiations.
This process involves a complex consideration of energy market forecasts, electric system modelling, consideration of contract risks and project viability and non energy market impacts such as economic development and environmental mitigation, like the industry itself. The relationship between our utilities and the developers of these projects has evolved with the success of massachusetts procurement by transitioning the authority for selection from the utility companies to the Department of Energy Resources. This legislation would maintain the robust, well established selection process that's been developed in partnership with the utilities while providing an additional level of independence and speed. Speed is important in future solicitations and especially important as we pursue somewhere on the order of 15-20 gigawatts of offshore wind over the next 30 years. Writing the request for proposals is a complicated process that considers complex issues with multiple parties at the table.
Although all parties strive to achieve consensus, disagreements are bound to occur and have stalled the drafting process in the past in the future. If such issues occur with no clean, clear path to consensus are proposed. Changes in the legislation would allow DOER in consultation with the independent evaluator to make final determinations on that RFP. This ensures we can press forward swiftly and not allow an overly long drafting process or disagreements to hinder our climate goals. The baker administration is also committed to ensuring the development of a diverse equitable and inclusive offshore wind workforce as the1177 governor mentioned, and we worked very hard to refine this process in our most recent procurement to advance uh that priority requiring for the first time that bidders outlined plans to1187 ensure the1188 development of a diverse equitable and inclusive workforce.
Bidders were also required to demonstrate the economic benefits for ratepayers, the projects ability to foster employment and economic development the project's environmental impacts and impacts on environmental justice communities. The result was the selection of two projects that delivered affordable pricing and Significant economic investments, serving as a model for future procurements. This legislation now captures these changes to the procurement criteria. So they are codified in the legislation itself, they were not um in the authorizing legislation from 2016 and ensures that future evaluations and selections identify those projects that offer the greatest overall benefit to the commonwealth cost effectively. It is critically important that we get this right. As as the governor said, our administration is proud to have worked in partnership with all of you and with the legislature to raise the bar for climate action in the United States.
The emission reduction targets we've set for the next 30 years are the most ambitious in any state in the country and offshore wind is at the center piece of that climate strategy, but it is1256 not the only solution we need. The path to achieve. Net zero in 2050 will require all of the innovation and ingenuity and creativity that Massachusetts can muster over the next three decades as well as flexibility, rebuilding an entire society around clean energy is no easy task1273 and we need all of our resources playing in this. I know the commonwealth is up to the challenge because we have the tools we need to get it done. We have a vibrant clean energy innovation sector, a1283 nation leading university system that is producing a new generation of forward thinking entrepreneurs,1288 highly skilled work force and outstanding vocational and training institutions.
But we really need are the resources to bring these pieces together. If we're going to achieve net zero by 2050, then this must be the decade for action and to reach that 50% reduction in emissions by 2030. As outlined in the bill, the climate bill, the governor signed last spring that both of you lead so well. We have a significant amount of work ahead of us in several key sectors. We need to retrofit a million homes to clean heating technologies like high efficiency air source heat pumps. And we need to put more than 750,000 EVs on the road and build on the charging infrastructure to support them. We need to increase the efficiency of our homes and commercial buildings and we need to support groundbreaking technologies like green hydrogen and emerging markets like energy storage. Each of these targets is a unique challenge that needs investment and that's where the opportunity for the $750 million fund comes in to deliver that shot in the arm to these new technologies and then to make sure that we retain these innovators here in the commonwealth and its an opportunity not just for our coastal communities with offshore wind, but for the entire state to play in this space.
Yeah, several weeks ago, I participated in a panel discussion with us Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, to discuss uh work on supporting a market for cold climate air source heat pumps. And one of the participants on the panel Jonathan knaves is the president of Green Energy Mechanical, a local heating and air conditioning company based in Canton, Jonathan had a valuable perspective to share. He said the greatest barrier to the adoption of heat pumps for families in massachusetts wasn't technological challenges or cost but actually finding1394 a qualified installer who was able to do the work electrifying our building sector will create thousands of jobs and we need1401 to make sure we build a workforce for the future, one that is diverse, equitable and inclusive with broad access to the training and skills development required.
With these resources from this fund, Mass CDC will be able to support early education programs for K through 12 students provide paid internships for higher education and vocational students and develop a wide range of industries specific training programs with a special focus on recruitment and training of members and environmental justice and underserved communities. So in conclusion, I'd like to thank the committee for your work on behalf of the commonwealth, your partnership in pursuit of our goals and your consideration of this vital legislation. I think we really have a great opportunity to move forward on needed changes for offshore wind as well as significant investments in our clean energy economy. Thank well,
[REP ROY:] thank you very much both for your testimony. I'm sure there are some questions from members of the committee. But before we get into the questions I want to do, take an opportunity to introduce the House members who are present for today's hearing. They include Vice Chair paul, Mark Dylan Fernandez, Jones Meschino kate Lipper-Garabedian Richard Haggerty Stephen Owens London mirror and Bradley Jones So thank you all to the House members and chair barrett, would you like to take the opportunity to introduce the Senate members? And if you have questions, I assume you have questions you can leadoff that as well.
[SEN BARRETT:] Thank you very much. Mr Chairman. I appreciate it and I appreciate your coming in yesterday and staying overnight because it was a challenging evening.
[ROY:] It's the most exciting thing I've done on this committee and is having a live hearing. Can you imagine?
[BARRETT:] I1514 also want to thank You two for the passion and really the brilliance with which you pursued energy policy and climate policy over the last four years. Um I agree with almost everything you said almost everything of things and I know that it reflects a great deal of genuine innovation on your part. I do want to talk as as you know1536 about the price cap precisely because it seems to have succeeded1541 so well. The governor pointed out perhaps you as well madam Secretary that in many respects we've outperformed our expectations. The price cap has outperformed to, we now have comps from new york Connecticut, New Jersey gathered for us and more or less normalized by the US Department of Energy. The comps are very extraordinary and I mentioned this to you in a letter that I sent to the two of you yesterday in Massachusetts according to the Department of Energy.
Although the price cap was temporarily suspended by statute, the bidders voluntarily complied with. Uh and so the deal came in at a level ized price. And this is, these are the DOE Figures $58 and change in new york in 2000 and 19. Their most recent project for which pricing has been announced. Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind came in At a price of $83 and change. So compared to the deal you folks negotiated from Massachusetts, ratepayers in this most recent round, it appears that New Yorkers will pay 43% more For wholesale electricity. Uh then we will 43% is not an incidental consequence of there not being a captain new york. It's a major consequence of new Yorkers not having the protection of a price cap. But then we go on. The governor to Connecticut Came in most recently in 2019. Revolution wind came in for Connecticut at $98. And change. So compared to our most recent Deal, it appears that1651 Connecticut residents will pay 68% more For the wholesale electricity resulting from their deal, 68% is not incidental.
And I know you would concede ocean Wind and New Jersey is the most recent deal there, according to the U. S. Department of Energy. Ocean wind came in at $116.82 without a price cap. So compared to the deal you negotiated for the ratepayers under the price cap, it appears that new jersey-ites will pay. This is just coincidental exactly 100% more for their electricity. I want1688 to ask the two of you whether you want to run the risk of these kinds of figures if we simply jettison the cap altogether because these are extraordinary1700 increases in the wholesale rate. And let's talk1704 about why competition, because you've alluded to it as a possible substitute for a cap hasn't worked for new york Connecticut and New Jersey at least judging from these numbers, it hasn't worked because it seems the capital requirements for plans in this business sector are huge compared, let's say, to Solar, where you've got a largely decentralized industry and lots of players and lots of competition.
And I'm sure when you're essentially talking about centralized power, this is not distributed energy. This is as centralized as onshore coal, oil and natural gas fired electric plants have been, you need a huge capacity to play. And the best we've been able to do is attract four bidders without the price cap. As you say, we were down to what attracted to up and down the coast at least New Jersey1760 North, I think there are only four players. So we can't depend on the market competition to substitute for a price cap as a protection for Massachusetts consumers. Unfortunately, at the moment, with or without a price cap, the entire East Coast, upper East Coast has attracted very few players. And that's a sobering thing to think about. So it seems to me that. You folks have done right to date. Uh, and you've safeguarded and affected a very good balance governor.
You allude to the fact that economic development has happened in southeastern Massachusetts, you've touted and with justification that the first manufacturing facility ever is going to be located, the Prysmian group is going to1807 be located, I believe in Somerset manufacturing underwater cable. So you brought the jobs and maintain the price cap. You've effectuated the reasonable balance that all of Massachusetts would hope to achieve.1820 My hat. It is doffed to you, my congratulations extended to you. But I can't, I believe that you would want to put us where new york is today by lifting the cap altogether or put us where God forbid Connecticut and New Jersey ratepayers1836 are today without a price cap. The last thing I'll say, and I hope you'll consider this. An extended question is governor, you, you said quite rightly that one of the things we've got to anticipate is transmission, for example, you cited that repeatedly is one reason why we can no longer protect rates at all for consumers.
Well, you know, you take a look at 83C and you read the statute and it currently requires the DPU not to approve a contract if the level is price per megawatt hour plus associated transmission costs is greater than, or equal to the previous price. So a simple way to provide measured relief as opposed to limitless price1883 increases would be to propose to us that we remove the reference to transmission, that we not require that it be priced with the megawatt hours of generation under one capped amount of money. If we simply permitted the transmission costs to be recovered on a cost only basis, we could keep the price cap for the megawatt hours and avert the new york Connecticut and1914 New Jersey dilemma. So I, I asked you whether there is grounds here for a compromise so that we can continue having the best of both worlds, which, which is economic development for southeastern Massachusetts and protection for ratepayers across the state. Can we find our way to some measured outcome here rather than rolling the dice as new york Connecticut and New Jersey folks symptoms.
[BAKER:] So there was a lot in that Mr, chairman, um, let me take a crack at this. Um, and then I'll turn it over to the secretary who will correct everything I get wrong. Um, what's always been the case? And I said this in the beginning of my remarks, um, has been the, um, the fruitful and informative and deliberate back and forth that's gone on between all of the so called public players in the development of the rules of the road associated with offshore wind and, um, and I remember in, Uh, and I remember in 2015 and 16, just how much back and forth there was that went on between the House and the Senate. Um, and again, how much back and forth went on between the house1997 and the Senate and the administration and the second bill. And um, and I happen to think that that back and forth is what produced, what for all intents2011 and purposes was legislation that led to the development of all that has come since then.
No one really, I mean, people are paying 150 bucks and thinking that was, or we're going to pay 100 and 50 bucks Instead of 58 and thought that was a good deal before this all got started. And um, and what I would say since we just got the letter last night, um, it's actually sitting on my desk. Um, what I would like to do is respond in writing to your letter. Um, but my guess is there are a bunch of elements you mentioned transmission. I'm sure there are others that are tied up in all this, which, um, which will take a look at new york Connecticut and New Jersey. Um, I2058 always appreciate having you point out, however, that we're doing a better job on price than they are. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yes, exactly. Um, but one of the things I would like to do is see if we can run what I would describe as kind of an apples to apples against what they had in here and which elements actually drove some of this.
I will say this one of the biggest and most important discussions we had with the legislature back in 15 and 16 was whether or not to create some ability for the commonwealth to say no if we didn't like the bid and I do believe that that put a tremendous amount of pressure on the people who bid to put their absolute best foot forward. I also think some of the stuff we've gotten in this last round was a lot more creative around economic development and um, and skill building then and now I'm sure the industry is also getting Smarter about this. You're right because of the scale associated with the investments is never going to be 20 players in this space. Um, at this level, but part of this clean Energy Innovation fund is about how many players we can create that are involved in other parts of this space.
And the storage one is a good example. I, you know, I'm one of these people who really does believe that if we actually figure out storage, um, and turn offshore wind and solar into a hard, completely reliable and dependable, whether the sun shining or the wind is blowing solution strategically, it changes kind of everything with respect to the way we think about some of this stuff and The main reason, I really think it would be great for people to visit six K is their whole notion of storage around EV batteries is so far fetched from what anybody would ever think of as an incremental change in the way you think about battery production and development that it speaks hugely to the fact that the power of innovation in this space maybe much bigger than we realize and, and, and the fact that it came out of MIT and and spent six years sort of figuring out how exactly they were going to get paid to take scrap from other people pulverize it with this um, system they've developed and turn it into the core materials that are required to2215 build batteries and then be able to recycle those batteries as well.
I mean, this thing is really special, but I think it also speaks to the fact that um, there's still a ton of innovation opportunity here and, and some of that I think will not just help harden the wind industry in the solar industry, but I think would also deal with some of the issues you're raising just2238 generally about the price overall and on the transmission thing, we should absolutely talk about that because, and you actually both of you have talked a lot about the importance of modernizing the grid as well. We're going to put everything that's currently not on the grid on the grid. Um, there's a lot of work we've got to do here, but I very much appreciate the way these issues2259 have been addressed and dealt with historically and we will absolutely respond to the questions and concerns. You've raised
[THEOHARIDES:] a couple of quick thoughts to add. You know, I think the governor's reference to the protection for ratepayers, both through the cost effective language in the 83 C, um, authorizing statute and the ability for the utility companies to turn down contracts that they do not believe are reasonable are key provisions in that authorizing statute. Um, I think if you look at the other states and what they've done, a lot of them have required significant local content and what we've done in our proposal here and in our original legislation was not make specific requirements around economic development. We evaluated as one component of how we look at these bids, but prices still the quantitative scoring of these procurements going forward as envisioned with this legislation is still largely focused on that quantitative score, which puts price at, at a premium. So prices still driving the decisions.
But2323 it's sort of like if you're building a bridge and you get a bunch of bids and one of them has four lanes and one of them has three lanes and the bridge with four lanes costs a little bit more. But you get a lot more value out of it for ratepayers. That's sort of what we're looking to do here, getting these additional resources in bids like storage, like hydrogen, better transmission, better economic development, um, paying potentially a little bit more. It's not even clear that we would pay more, but you pay more and you get something more that on a day like today keeps people from using oil and saves the overall system money for ratepayers over the long term. So I think what we're really looking at here is the big picture, not just these individual contracts, but how do we make sure these contracts are bringing in resources that bring costs down over the entire system?
[BARRETT:] I ask an additional question. First of all, I appreciate your, your responses. The, and I want2382 to, before I go forward, I want, there is a colleague, I want to introduce Vice chair Senator Mark Pacheco who I believe is with us remotely and who I should have introduced very outset. Welcome Mark and thank you for being here. I think he is the only member of the Senate other than myself was here at present. Uh, my problem with, with the idea that there are substitute protections for consumers is that the language, the reasonableness test for the cost effectiveness test that could enable Massachusetts to reject all bids in a given round is a circumscribed option because there are, there isn't enough competition. two bidders don't doesn't constitute competition, but neither does four when you've got a market that at the moment is so noncompetitive, that is essentially an oligopoly Massachusetts isn't going to have the luxury of saying no to all bidders and around because the next round at the moment2443 is likely to include bidders just as if you so we are stuck in a situation where we're going to have to deal with a very small universe of potential players.
And we're just saying no is not a long term policy option. The second point I I want to mention is that in solar, to your credit, to your credit, uh, and to the credit of DOER, you carefully put into place a series of adders and subtractors, there was a kind of base price, but you told the development community and they're, there was sufficient competition that they could make a little more if they solved or addressed an additional problem. They also ran the risk of making a little less if they failed to step up to the plate in this case for for some reason. And, and, and there there may be a long term financing reasons why adders and subtractors are more complex for offshore went after all today, your contract speak to uh a negotiated price out 15 to 20 or 25 years. So adders and subtractors would, would instigate a level of instability that might cause problems, but I would want to2523 know whether or not you have thought through the possibilities of using adders and subtractors as a way of addressing very discreetly the possibility of a controlled but higher rate for Massachusetts citizens in return for the resolution of a discrete problem at present Madam. Secretary.
My problem with with the eloquent case you just made is that this situation presents us with the situation that the private sector public sector interface2556 often presents. Right? I think back to the Fidelity tax break of 1996. Fidelity promised to keep a certain number of jobs. I remember Governor that in 1996 Fidelity, I think in good faith at that time, promised to keep a certain number of jobs in massachusetts in return for getting a break in that case, a tax break. And we bought it even though there was an asymmetry in terms of power, we were going to grant the concession for a long term. But we couldn't really be sure Fidelity was going to deliver and give us commensurate value. As it turns out, fidelity had to make other business decisions later into the 90s and the early aughts and decided not to create the requisite number of jobs or rather, I should say, they created a number of jobs for a number of years and then immediately moved everything else to Rhode island new2617 Hampshire and texas.
So we didn't get our money's worth in that engagement with the private sector. In part because we gave them something up front. We depended on them giving us something over the course of years and for a variety of reasons, we did not get good value. I am concerned here that we're going to give industry something up front. The removal of all price controls and we're talking about a regulated industry where we regulate everything. This isn't like the rest of private industry. We regulate the utilities here for regulates a lot of the players. So this is not a private market, This is a regulated market, It's a public private partnership. Were abridging the partnership by removing the cap. We risk seeing a fidelity scenario played out all over again with offshore wind. I think that the, that we need to take a step back and reconsider whether we have the ability to give them a huge concession up front and still ensure value over the course of years. I suspect that we haven't but carefully enough about that problem. And that's a question.
[BAKER:] We can incorporate that into the response to your letter, which we will by2705 the way, with respect to those numbers. I confirmed that the gap, let's say between new york and massachusetts for two entirely independent sources, there are lots of ways of calculating what new Yorkers paying what massachusetts people pay. The Department of Energy did it one way and and those are the data I cited. But actually I talked to independent academics here in massachusetts who have different numbers, but came out with precisely the same gap. 42% difference right between what Massachusetts people pay under the price cap and what New Yorkers paying the most recent deal without it. So either way, no matter how you crunch the figures, it looks2741 like you guys did a good thing. My request to you2745 is that you not walk away from the wisdom that has assured us getting a break today.
[BAKER:] In the end, we play by the rule book, you pass.
[ROY] So well, are you all set senator? Okay, well, first of all, I want to say thank you for your testimony and this back and forth and back and forth that we've been having, I would say, I know I've I've been engaged in some of these conversations since I became chair of this committee back in February and I think that certainly has influenced the landscape and and what has happened. So it's, it's delightful that we have the opportunity to have this back and forth. I would suggest to you that this back and forth will continue because we are going to a poll and offshore wind bill uh, this afternoon as soon as this hearing concludes and that will keep the discussion going and uh, the house2806 will have a view, the Senate will have a view and I know that this has been a priority of speaker Mariano because within 15 minutes of telling me of this appointment, he tasked me with the job of putting together an offshore wind bill.
And he takes this matter to heart. I think he's even given the need for the industry uh, in promoting it in Massachusetts. And you folks have done an incredible job in making massachusetts a leader in the offshore wind industry and we want to keep that going. We want to keep that alive. And I do think these measures will help that along. And I wholeheartedly2850 agree with you governor on 6K. I did have the opportunity to get up there and visit in October and absolutely amazed at what I saw. Six K was one of the2863 manufacturers of the2864 year that we gave an award to out at, uh, what is that ballpark in Worcester Polar park. Polar park. Okay. It's a it's been a long day, but we, they were one of the recipients, and I remember when the description of the company was being read at the proceeding, it was incredible.
And I said, I've got to get up there and and see what they're doing and it is absolutely breathtaking. Uh, and we have commonwealth fusion, which is working on another technology, which is uh, is a hopeful energy solution for us. So we will have a menu of options available to us to give the power that this, the commonwealth of Massachusetts truly need. So, um, I know there's some other questions out there. Um, I'm gonna ask committee members to help me by using the raise hand function so that I can see that you have a question, but I do know that representative Fernandez has some questions, So rep Fernandez, the floor is yours.
[REP FERNANDES:] Thank you mr Chairman. Um and thank you governor and secretary for your commitment to the offshore wind industry. and I really appreciate this bill2939 and your focus on price with added flexibility for economic development and jobs while hitting our long term term climate goals. I have a question around the enumeration payments, which are a significant cost to ratepayers. And in the letter you sent to the legislature outlining the need for this bill, you determined that lowering the remuneration payments would reduce costs to ratepayers and that. I'm just wondering how you ended up reaching and settling on that 2.5%.2970 So, any any information around that I think would be really helpful. Thank you.
[THEOHARIDES:] Sure. So, under the, under the current authorizing statute, uh, the EDCs, the electric distribution companies are allowed to recover up to 2.75% of the cost of the contract in remuneration2991 and what2992 remuneration does, just just for folks listening at home, it really offsets the financial risk that the companies take on from these large contracts in a newly developing field. And so the level of remuneration has been challenged throughout this process by the AGO. During contract approval with the DPU. And because this procurement process requires the utilities to enter into these long term contracts, including lease agreements, energy sales and general development contracts, um, there's a certain degree of financial risk that each company is taking on when they enter into these contracts because the companies have strong balance sheets, right? That's pretty much the only way we can do this in Massachusetts is to use3041 the utilities to put these on their books.
Um3045 they have the financial integrity that's needed. They have good credit scores and these benefits are passed onto commonwealth ratepayers through the competitive pricing we get from the contracts and with the utilities um high rating. So we're getting a benefit by using their balance sheets and asking them to take on the risk by setting the remuneration at a set price rather than an up to were giving more certainty through the process for both the companies for the commonwealth to get the wind We need and not to get held up during the contracting process, um and and to ensure that there is a rate of return for using the utilities balance sheets and using their their credit ratings and asking them to take on this risk. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I do not see any other questions. So I thank you for your testimony and look forward to working with
senator Pacheco I am sorry, I did not see that the floor is us Senator.
[SEN PACHECO:] Yeah. Yes, Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, can you hear me? Yes.
[SEN PACHECO:] All right, well, thank you very much and I want to take this moment to thank the governor and thank the secretary for their leadership, working cooperatively with the legislature to get us to the point where3132 we are actually comparing what the numbers are between other states across the country and are in discussions worldwide with other countries actually pointing to what is taking place here now in the, in the commonwealth and what is happening in the offshore wind sector. Right. I sit here and I smile because I look back on the days way back to 2006 07 eight when we finally passed the Global Warming Solutions Act and put the standards in place in Statute to get us to where we need to be. And then looking at 2015 16 when we finally came to an agreement on the procurement process for offshore wind and that did include the price cap. But subsequent to that, after we saw what could happen With the, I think it was 6.53202 cents kilowatt hour.
That, that first for his proposal came in at which I was, I certainly was surprised at that number and I think the governor and all of us were quite, I'm quite pleased with that number. And when we looked at the second trench and I can remember taking, taking the floor in the Senate in asking that we did remove the price cap for that trench because of uh, some of the concerns that we're hearing from industry across the commonwealth and3245 low and behold, we did remove the, The price cap for that for that bid. And I think it3252 came in at 5.8 cents, even though we didn't have a requirement. Uh, overall, I just wanted to say, I think price is important, it's extremely important. And because3268 when we look at say, southeastern massachusetts where I represent, certainly it's important to have local economic development, it's going to be great. Uh, it already, we're starting to see signs of this new industry generate economic opportunity here, especially after the last bids were announced.
Um, uh, but having said that the economic benefits that take place statewide with every small business has a significant positive3306 impact because of pricing as Senator Barrett has referenced. Certainly, pricing is, is very important in terms of the cost. Ah, I would only ask both the governor and the secretary to also be thinking about and we should all be thinking about what's happening at the federal level as well because as we see, uh, federal, um, benefits to these projects based upon what the subsidies would be uh, to, to the projects going forward, that makes a difference. So yes, we've done both actually, we've had the price caps in place, but we also had a trench go out that had no price cap in place. I think the most important thing here is flexibility in being able to negotiate in real time with some of these companies as we're going forward to get the best overall deal for the rape peers in the commonwealth and to um, be as aggressive as possible to get to our overall goals.
And so I'm pleased that what I'm hearing about the proposal that you put forth governor is the flexibility to be able to work on these issues, uh, and to allow DOER, if it need be to have the final say so we can get this accomplished. At the end of the day, we're not only going to see benefits in southeastern3415 massachusetts, but in the last set of bids, we've seen Salem in the in the mix. Now, you're going to be looking at everything going down to main, you know, up and down the whole east Coast. It's going to be a collaborative type of effort that will generate, uh, you know, thousands and thousands of jobs, jobs with titles that never existed before. That we will be filling. And that will take a huge investment in workforce development and training to make sure we're doing, uh, you know, the right thing. So I I simply wanted3460 to say thank you, you know, for your leadership in this. I've been honored to work with this administration on a number of these issues and the talent that we have on the committee, the leadership of this committee and working to come up with the right type of compromise language as we move forward.
And I would hope that what we preserve is the flexibility to be able to move because federal policy can change those subsidies can change when those subsidies change. That means that3499 maybe it would be better if we uh, you know, did not have, you know, the price gap in in some3508 cases. Uh, you know, those numbers that Senator Barrett reference reference in terms of comparisons, but comparisons actually, we're with trenches that were awarded. Uh, you know, from the from the commonwealth that included both price caps that were mandated, but also at least one that was not. Uh, so it's uh, it's interesting as we move forward, I think the dynamic is going to change some of the things that have benefited us has been because we were a first mover. We're first mover. The industries that got in first obviously3552 had an advantage going forward for the 2nd and 3rd round bids. And they will continue3560 to have that advantage as they as they go forward. And it's a way to, we we just need to figure out the way to properly assess that to I be able to negotiate in real time with them as we're going forward, final peace.
Uh, and just want to3579 have you take some, give me a little reaction here to the Secretary to the Governor, Green hydrogen, you reference, and I must tell you, I'm still a skeptic on green hydrogen because of the significant cost that I'm seeing associated with it. And in3603 uh, the net benefits in terms of getting down to ah, you know, reducing emissions. I just, I just haven't seen those numbers work yet. And maybe there's there's a lot more than I need to learn about it. But3626 we've been working with the CSG and the and the Energy and Environmental Committee, the Council of State Government that is looking at some of these proposals, some of the3638 research that's going into it and there's, you know, significant expense that that has been associated with this. And uh, I would just like to to see, you3653 know, what you may bring to the table in terms because you referenced it and I just just wondering if you could, you could expand upon that just a little bit more in terms of new3664 technology.
[BAKER:] Good to see you senator. And um, thanks for your work on this all the way back to what is now, almost 15 years ago. Um, what I would just, I actually have to run because there's another hearing, I'm participating in with a different committee in a few minutes, so I'm going to pass the baton to secretary Theoharides. But I would say this, um, The, the interesting thing to me about green hydrogen is3698 not where it is now, it's the progress that it's made over the course of the past 10 years or so. And you know, and I agree with you. Um, you know, you, the opportunity here is always going to be about an inflection point. Um, no one thought we were going to get 6.5 cents when we put that bid out In 2017. No one and yet we did. And it was a big demonstration of both the way you and your colleagues worked to structure the legislation, the way our team worked to put the bids out and the constantly changing and sometimes not fully appreciating changing nature of the technology associated with offshore wind itself.
Mhm. That's part of why the Green Energy Innovation Fund is so interesting to me because I think this is a space where innovation could3752 translate into really big um improvements in the so called cost quality curve. Um but I also think that part of what makes green hydrogen interesting to me is that I think it has a future here. Um that3768 will come at some point. I just, I'm not exactly sure when I sort of feel the same way about storage, which I've been talking about since I took office, but that one obviously is going to take a little longer to, but I appreciate the committee's time and I and I do have to scoot, but I will turn it over to the secretary.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mhm.
We have3792 additional questions. I'm gonna take care. Thank you. I'll turn the floor over now to uh representative Hawkins
[REP HAWKNS:] Thank you. I don't actually have a question. I just want to compliment how exciting this is being a relative newcomer to this discussion, how quickly we are moving and what it's doing for my part of the state Southeastern massachusetts to the statewide in terms of energy, the changing energy needs. Uh and how quickly it's moving and what a what a plus this is for this part of the state in terms of economic development. Um, so this discussion is absolutely fascinating and I'm so grateful to the work that everybody is putting into this. So thank you,
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
thank you and thank you for raising your hand because I didn't recognize you earlier in the uh hearing and glad3844 to see you're here. Uh and the next question is rep Meschino
[REP MESCHINO:] Um Thank you so much. Mr Chairman. Um um secretary Theoharides I just wanted to echo my comments, echo my colleagues comments and um add my thanks. It's actually been really interesting listening to you talk about what is essentially the decarbonization of our economy and um the thoughtful approach. Um you know, from my part, um taking into consideration, cost has always been a key piece of this. Um and in fact, we've built that analysis right into the 2050 roadmap and um and3884 to our climate goals and how we get there. And so, um so I'm very appreciative of the way you talk about it a decade for action.
Um and I was really appreciative of the governor's3894 remarks, especially when he's talking about the power of innovation. Um I guess I just wanted to um first and foremost a thank you for that and and um, obviously appreciate the dialogue and looking forward to working with you on this. Um, but I did also just want to um tasked you with giving the governor a gentle reminder, um we have not seen any appointments to the environmental justice advisory council yet. And I do think that um taking into consideration EJ In all aspects of how we're doing this becomes very important.
Um you know, you called it the decade for action and we are in3932 a transition right? We're transitioning from a carbon based to a decarbonization and but we are still pursuing things like the Peabody Peaker plant and things like that. And so I just want to raise that to you. Um and to remind you that we do, we do have to make sure that all of this is aligning. Um, and so that we're both ready for when that first, you know, clean energy electron comes from um from the wind, um and be thinking not just about what we're gleaning, um3967 but also making sure that we're not doubling down on our carbon based infrastructure. And so, um I did just want to raise those issues to you and thank you also for all of the tremendous work you're doing. And just to say that it's really great3983 to be on this committee and to be working with you. Um and just to thank you for your time.
[THEOHARIDES:] Well, thank you so much Representative and and thanks for your strong partnership on all of these issues. And as you say, you know, I think one of the key tenants of the climate law of much of our work on decarbonization is that as we make this transition to a clean energy economy, it should be done cost effectively equitably and with a strong focus on environmental justice and there were a number of provisions in the climate law that we are very busy um in the process of implementing now. I know the appointments to the environmental justice advisory panel are going through background checks right now and should be announced imminently and so we're happy to share those with the committee as they get finalized.
Um,4034 we are also finalized, were finalized our updates to MEPA regulations to incorporate environmental justice. And you're seeing a number of changes across our agencies. DEP working on the cumulative impact analysis to look at health, public health impacts in environmental justice communities in terms of citing new infrastructure. So this is I think one of4056 the biggest opportunities as we move forward is to really rebuild the way we're making decisions, the way we're incorporating formerly marginalized communities into these decisions4068 and better outreach and communication writ large On the issue of cost, which which you brought up very eloquently, I did want to say, you know, one of the things that is different about the $750 million dollar fund that we propose here is that very often our clean energy um investments have been financed through ratepayers right?
We have we have a lot of policy included in our electricity rates and this is an opportunity as Senator Pacheco so eloquently said to use federal dollars not coming from ratepayers to reinvest in our clean energy system in a way where we don't have to get the money from folks paying electricity bills. And so I would encourage the committee to really take a hard look at the potential of using these federal dollars for that innovation fund.
[ROY:] Thank you very much. And uh, I know that chair Barrett has one final question.
[BARRETT:] Thank you very much, madam Secretary. Regardless of whether we keep the cap abridge it in some way or completely destroy it, this question of constant benefits will remain. Uh, what benefits are we getting in return for the costs we impose on ratepayers and the risks that we impose on ratepayers of ever greater costs. One thing my committee and I have done, I'm sorry, one thing my staff and I have done is look at the commonwealth Wind and the Mayflower wind responses to the RFP.
Uh, we looked at these responses because we wanted to see what4173 Southeastern Mass and Salem and the rest of massachusetts might hope to get in return for uh, ratepayers of contracting with these entities under a price cap, but still there's real costs involved for them as it turns out. And this is very troubling as we contemplate removing the cap as it turns out all the key information that might enable this committee, journalists or members of the public4203 to determine whether there's been good value given for the money committed by the public is redacted. So when one cannot look at the responses of these huge companies on the economic development question and say, aha gateway cities in Massachusetts, environmental justice communities and Massachusetts are getting enough to justify our paying4232 this for electricity.
We're in a situation where the legislature and this committee cannot conduct its oversight function with respect to costs and benefits. If everything is going to be redacted, if only the executive branch is going to have access to what has been given in return for the price that's paid. We're really facing a difficult job here in the House and the senate, what can we do about giving the public access to enough information to determine whether the trade off has been worthwhile.4269
[THEOHARIDES:] But you raise a good point. And I think one of the things that happens um, from the time of the, when we4277 received the RFPs to, when we select when the committee selects um mhm. A bid to go forward with to then contracting with the DPU is that as that process proceeds, more information becomes public and uh and and becomes unredacted. Uh So for example, the, the level level ized price information will be public. Once the contracts get signed with
[BARRETT:] the horses out4303 of the barn that none of us are able with the exception4306 of the executive branch, none of us are able to reach a judgment At the time when the when the die is cast and the commitments most of them have been made as to whether the deal is a4318 good one in terms of job creation or rates.
[THEOHARIDES:] Well, you know, I think, I think this is true of many contracts grant making, uh, the executive, the legislature sets the bounds that we work in and then the executive determines the process for moving forward. But we're happy to talk more about ways to give more feedback and more insight into the procurement process and and into the value. We're getting
[BARRETT:]4345 Who institutes, the request for a redaction and, and what is the justification advanced for keeping all economic benefits out of public view?
[THEOHARIDES:] It's really, you know about the developers keeping their information proprietary while these things are being um, discussed and negotiated, they still have to go through negotiations with the DPU in relation to the actual contract that gets signed and there's a number of details that are ironed out through that process that, you know, are not fully formed yet.
[BARRETT:] So if we did remove the price cap, we would have no insurance at the time when initial decisions were made value was obtained, everything would continue to be redacted until we had progress pretty far down the line.
[THEOHARIDES:] Usually the, I mean, I think, I think there were prices put out when the, when the bids got announced,
[BARRETT:] Noneconomic benefits. That's, that's what I'm concerned about. I anticipate higher prices in the future and the benefits remaining unknown for a significant period of time, possibly permanently until until the the jobs eventuate or not. In other words,
[THEOHARIDES:] the economic benefits of both vineyard and Mayflower our public. No, actually they are redacted at present the first ones. Yes, I'm talking about the deal we just crafted if we removed if I don't want to. I think what I'm saying is it would be very easy for the legislature to evaluate the two bids that have already gone through and been improved and ensure that we're doing our job and oversight on that those deals are done before the deal is done. We don't have access to economic benefits. So we will be forced to look back historically On whether the deal was a wise one. Is there any alternative4465 to that? Is there any possibility that the public should know the terms of the deal in terms of economic benefit before commitment?
[THEOHARIDES:] I think it's something we could talk about.4475 You know, I think it would take discussions with the developers discussions with the procurement team has been in the weeds of this. I don't want to speak on their behalf because they're much smarter than I am. But I take your point and I think it's something we can certainly discuss, particularly given this committee's level of engagement in the real details of this, which I really appreciate it.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Thank you, madam Secretary. Yes, that's, thank you for being our first live witness and great to see you and stay warm and we'll see you soon.
[ROY:] Our next witness to testify is going to continue the discussion of offshore wind and that is mayor john Mitchell from the city of New Bedford. Mayor Mitchell. The floor is yours
[MAYOR MITCHELL (NEW BEDFORD):] right, chairman, thank you so much for having me today. Members of the committee, thank you so much for your leadership on all these matters concerning offshore wind. Made obviously here in New Bedford, we have a very acute interest in these proceedings,4537 but it is offshore wind as we all know, is something that holds4542 great promise uh, for the entire commonwealth, not just as a climate change mitigation strategy, but also as an economic development strategy. Um it's the latter of those two interests, that has been the primary one for us really from the start. Um you know, as much as we see the promise of offshore wind as a source of renewable energy.
We live here in a part of the state and greater new Bedford in southeastern Massachusetts more generally, that does not rise with Boston's tied uh, new Bedford is some 60 miles away from Boston. We are the center of our own sphere here. And so we have to compete on our own. Uh,4588 and one of the ways that we have chosen to compete for jobs and private capital is to leverage what we do well and what we do very well here is um what we do out on the water is, you know, the effort is the preeminent commercial fishing port in the United States and its those skills and the infrastructure and the know how that translates very well into offshore wind.
So, we've been at this for a while for all those reasons, and um, at the risk of being somewhat of a skunk at the4617 garden party, we have been somewhat dismayed by um, The level of investment some 10 years into our effort now to attract it here and we have watched as other states have been able to command through aggressive outreach and incentives. Um, the lion's share of industry investment as it has happened in the United States now. So I'm talking about places like nearby providence new London, uh, continuing down the east coast of Brooklyn all the way up to Albany paulsborough in New Jersey. We're starting to see in Baltimore and, and very significantly recently, a $200 million new blade factory that Siemens kammiso will build in Virginia. So, these, I'm talking about factories, I'm talking about port facilities and talking about training centres, um, it is almost entirely gone to other states, with two distinct exceptions.
There has been good news recently, as part of the most recently recent solicitation and commitment to a cable manufacturer at breaking point in Somerset and, but what we've seen primarily in massachusetts is investment in boston, the central offices, the regional offices of both developers as well as the major contracts except set up shop there. Um, this is no secret, I'm not, there's no newsflash here, this is something that people who work closely with the industry have freely acknowledged. And if you look at the comments issued by, submitted by developers in the last go around, they4715 were actually very up front about it. Massachusetts as the secretary just acknowledged is all about price, that is their impression and that's fine, but nobody should be and that there may be some policy and some value judgements baked into that,4730 but nobody should be under4731 the misimpression that somehow the industry is going to form an industrial cluster here just because massachusetts is a first mover and just because massachusetts has been promoting the build out of projects, it's quite different to build out projects out on the water.
It's quite another thing to form up an industry cluster here as that, as industry clusters are understood. And so, um, this bill is that the governor's bill is4761 an acknowledgement that it's4762 right there in the cover letter were risking we as a state are risking losing out still more investment, uh, to other places. And so, um, in my view, that's the most significant thing of the bill. It's, it's a recognition uh, one that we have been insisting on for for years now that massachusetts has to become more aggressive and that does not necessarily mean a spike in4789 prices or, or lack of competitiveness on price or, or soaking ratepayers with the burden of, of economic promoting economic development in the state.4799 It's acknowledgement that we're not as a state doing enough, we're doing enough in New Bedford. I will, I will attest to that. We are very aggressive about promoting what we have to offer.
We just, but the solicitation process is the4813 most important aspect of, of uh, the state's competitiveness in this industry and it has to change. And, and so we are delighted that the governor has come around to that realization. There are some4827 really important steps uh, in the bill, um, that we've been hearing a little bit about the price, the lifting of the price cap is one of them. The price cap in this context does what price caps do. It constrains4842 supply. Um, you know, we have this, uh, we have a housing crunch in massachusetts, of course, especially in the4848 boston area. Nobody is really pushing rent control for good reason, right? It will ultimately constrain the number of units built. That's what price caps do. And that's what it did in the last4859 go around.
We only had to participants in the last solicitation, um, orstead and Equinor sat sat it out and if you ask the developers, um privately once, who did participate, they'll tell you they're all about their reluctance to going back at it next time. They probably won't if the price gap remains in place. And so we have now a competitive4883 market lifting, the price gap is not going to result in some sort of price spike. It's, it's this, the market has firmed up. There are a number of places, number of players now, it is not, in my view, an oligarchy, there's no indicia of collusion4900 or anything else. Um, that would would resemble oligarchical behavior. These there they are all very competitive against one another. The second thing I'll say is that's that's really good about the bill, is that it gets the utilities out of the final decision.
Um This is as Chairman Barrett, as you recognized in your remarks,4925 it's an opaque process from where we sit, you know, it is, you4929 know, we every every time there is, there has been a solicitation, we've waited um, you know, for the metaphorical of, of smoke to emerge from Beacon Hill to understand that there's been a decision made and but without fully knowing exactly what went into that they having the utilities involved in this and not just involved, but making the final determination, it allows for conflict of conflicts of interest to play into4959 it, uh in varying degree. Uh and they cannot be teased out. The utilities now are very active in the offshore wind space. And our players in this market. And so, um,4970 getting them out of the final decision makes a lot of sense. Um uh, Chairman Barrett, I will, I will note, I fully agree with you that the doors should be thrown open to the, to daylight on the economic development proposals.
The problem is not so much what the winning bidders proposed, that's what the losers proposed. Right? If you really want to4992 get, that's what, that's what remains redacted. If you really want to compare proposals, you've got to look at what everybody put in and we can't, we haven't been able to do that as yet. There have been other proposals we are aware of and private conversations with developers that have been very generous when it comes to economic development in the past. Um, and they have never seen the light of day. And so it's hard for us to assert what the commonwealth has missed out on because um, it's, it's not open to public inspection. It should be. I think you're absolutely right about that. Um, the most important thing that can happen, I, I wrote a letter, I submitted it yesterday, some of the committee members have had to have a chance to to read it, but the most important way for the state to compete for other jobs for, for the jobs and the private capital that this industry would bring would be to convey in the solicitation process that uh, investment is important to massachusetts period and you do that by according a very clear wait to investments.
Um, right now it's about as clear as mud. I mean, those of you who have delved into the solicitation process will note that economic benefits are one of the qualitative factors that the utilities have evaluated to determine the overall score of the bid. And the reality is that it is co5080 mingled with other factors, um, as part of the overall qualitative analysis. So you can't5087 tell exactly how highly any given proposal was scored on the economic benefits. It has to be distilled out. It has to be its own separate category and there has to be clarity on how much weight, uh, it represents in the overall score. Um, I will tell you, we've suggested this before if we want to compete against other5109 states, primarily in new york, which has an even bigger Ratepayer base as we know, then Massachusetts, then we have, if we're serious about bringing jobs and then then we have to think about what New York does New York um, ways economic developments, assigns a weight to economic development benefits of 20% of the overall score. Now that may strike some folks as just overly aggressive.
Um, but we've got to do something different and we watched as, as the industry has gone to all the states that have governors have said, we're going to be the center of offshore wind here, every single one of them down the eastern seaboard, all the way down to Virginia. To my knowledge has said that. And so, you know, we now is the5151 time as the first project is about to lift off to get really aggressive about that. We haven't entirely lost the opportunity. We lost some of the opportunity, mind you, but not all of it. Uh, so having a clear, clearly assigned wait, having a distilled out from the qualitative analysis will be really important. There are other factors that I lay out in the letter that are important. I do think that whether you call them gateway cities or um, um, whatever term you are fixed to places in the state that are not there outside of greater boston, we would welcome uh, some signal that that's where investment would be um, preferred. Uh, it would be consistent with state economic development policy after all to provides some preference for gateway cities. A couple of other things. I will just mention
[ROY:] actually actually uh, mayor Mitchell, I'm going to ask you if you could try to wrap up. I know that we gave the governor and the secretary some latitude but I've got 90 witnesses lined up to testify today.
[MITCHELL:] I'll wrap up with with saying this week, this is, as I said in the letter, um, the, it will be important that proposals for fishing mitigation be baked into the overall bids as well. That's a fair expectation and in so far as matters, investments are funded. The most important wants to be funded in order to enhance the competitiveness of Massachusetts, our port infrastructure projects. This is the offshore emphasis on offshore wind5255 industry and they have to do, they have to touch the land somewhere5259 and its support facilities that make the difference. And so investing there would be um, would be money well spent. I appreciate the additional time mr chairman and I will, I'll stop right there.
[ROY:] Well, I want to thank you, thank you for your testimony and also thank you for your hospitality and my visits down to the city. Love what you're doing down there. And I love the opportunities that offshore wind presents for your area of the commonwealth. And I urge you to look closely at the bill that the committee will hopefully5296 report out in the next day because if you like what you saw in 4204, you're going to love what you see in the committee's bill. So I urge you to pay attention to that when it, when it comes out. Are there5310 any questions? I don't see any hands raised. Senator Barrett,
[BARRETT:] Thank you Mayor very much for taking part in this hearing. I want to join Representative Roy5320 and just paying tribute to your city. I'm a regular attenders at the new Bedford folk festival and love walking around the historic districts downtown while I'm there. It's, it's an amazing place I do want,
[MITCHELL:] I'm not on the, I'm not on the list for singing this year in the folk festival, but maybe sometime,
{BARRETT:] you5344 know, I do want to offer just a modest factual correction. We've gone through the commonwealth of Mayflower bids the to winning bids in the last round. All the details on economic are redacted. So it's, I know that they dribble out some announcements and listen, I'm very pleased that vineyard wind has established a, an offshore wind control center in New Bedford. I'm very pleased as well that they've taken control of a, of a nearby subleased from a nearby industrial concern and Promised up to 360 jobs. I want jobs for southeastern mass. But all that economic development has occurred as you know, under the cap and it is the case. Two things I mentioned, one, I've spoken to the developers to, you know, they come into my office and they come into chair Roy's and I have asked them explicitly about the price cabbage and I've been5405 told that the price cap is not the key factor in how much economic development they route to massachusetts. Uh, so there is a difference5414 of views that they may be saying different things to different people, but they're telling me that the price camp is not discouraging economic activity.
What does seem to be going on and this creates a dilemma for us, creates a dilemma for you creates a dilemma for all of us who want to see economic development in the southeast and Salem Is that they are determined to distribute the5437 benefits, the goodies as it were up and down the coast. That's just politics, right? They want to have some realized in Massachusetts, but then you go right down the line and you hit 11 other Atlantic coastal states, including Virginia and the Carolinas that is inevitable. I do not see how we're really going to be able to persuade them not to5461 do with other states, what they're doing with us, which is to promise some onshore activity. So that's a, we still need a strategy, you're right and it should be an aggressive one and it should be pro jobs. But exposing the all the rate payers of Massachusetts to the draconian step. I have not modifying cap for loosening it, but removing it altogether is to take a real risk.
[MITCHELL:] Yeah, I mean, that's a, you know, I think that's a really important point mr chairman, if I might. Um, and if and is a point of clarification. Yeah. Um, we're not going to read massachusetts will not capture all the industry investment. So let's, you know, let's be realistic. And in order, nor do we have this space for that, is the goal really at the end, is to is to create an industry cluster here. You know, think of the other industry clusters5518 and in massachusetts, life science comes immediately to mind. Their, our biotech companies in many parts of the country, but it's in massachusetts that everybody understands that if you're in the biotech business, you've got to have, you've got to have your foot planted in uh, in massachusetts. We want the same to be achieved in offshore wind and ideally like that center of activity of course to be in New Bedford. But um, but that, but that's really the goal here. It's, it's not to capture every last investment dollar. It's to be the place that is seen as the center. Um, because good things will follow from that.
[ROY:] Thank you so much for your testimony, appreciate it and look forward to seeing you again soon. Uh, we have another mayor online who will continue this discussion and some good things happening up in the city of Salem. So at this time I would turn the floor over to Mayor kim Driscoll from Salem,
[MAYOR DRISCOLL (SALEM):] thank you so much appreciate the opportunity to be with all of you and most assuredly appreciate your work in this space. Obviously this bill and the work that the committee is putting in two utilized up to $750 million in Arpa of funding to support the clean energy sector, including changes to the offshore wind procurement process and to5596 promote that objectivity, that equitable economic development, certainty and speed5601 and future solicitations is so important and I've really enjoyed the discussion today trying to figure out how we drill down and get their clearly a huge opportunity for the commonwealth to continue leading the nation through this transition to clean energy and something that will directly support communities like Salem that are pivoting into a growing clean energy industry like offshore wind. Um a few points to highlight and5624 I want to keep it brief because I know you have a lot of folks to hear from obviously an exciting opportunity for the clean industry, the clean energy industry um as we continue this long road economic recovery from covid 19, particularly for economic justice communities and former coal plant communities like Salem Somerset, a handful of others.
It's not lost on me that communities like Salem are housing the power plants of house the sewerage plants. We've been the place where these sorts of industries um ended up locating this now is a transformational opportunity as we pivot to this new clean energy sector. Um the need for resources to support clean energy transition, including workforce and supply chain development is so important. If we're going to maximize the opportunities in the commonwealth, as has been discussed by by the group here this morning this afternoon and then obviously the possible benefits of future offshore wind procurement to attract more economic development as the domestic supply chain is developed uh and continue um the necessary investments we need to make in our port infrastructures. So many of5691 our cities and towns that have had the opportunity to have a port have seen their economic prominence, their wealth, their economic activity derived from that port.
It may have been fishing, it may have been in Salem's case, you know, being a the great age of sales, sailing tiny clipper ships across the globe and bringing back wears and great wealth and prominence and now offshore wind in our case and so many others just presents an amazing opportunity to once again utilize that sea to benefit our communities Here in Salem we estimate we're going to need approximately $150 million dollars of infrastructure investment In order to ready the 42 acre site to support offshore wind. Now the amenities are there, it's right off the federal channel, it's open available land, it's clearly a place that can be home for marshalling and construction as we get ready to support the industry and be ready by 2025 Of that 150 82 million is directly for marine structures that are publicly owned through our port authority in the, in the areas that we know we're going to need key investment and while we anticipate like significant private investment by the commonwealth Wind project, which is Crowley, Avian grid, the CIP Team,
There is going to need to be some state and federal funding, I mean there's no better definition than a true public private partnership than this offshore wind industry. Um and we're so super helpful that this recent allocation of 1990 million in Arpa spending for port infrastructure, we said that is a great first step, but we know these additional dollars are going to be necessary if we truly want to be a leader in offshore wind in the offshore wind industry and to be able to invest imports like5783 Salem and New5784 Bedford and Somerset and Fall River and so many others. Um, I love the analogy to the life sciences industry because I think that's where we saw massachusetts really went deep. It was a game changer for our commonwealth. It certainly has been a game changer for how we think about medicines being deployed in our, in our country, but we ceded that work.
Um, you seated that work, your investments, your thoughtfulness, you're forward thinking. And if we can do that in a similar way for offshore wind and clean energy innovation, we're not only going to be doing something that's going to be beneficial to our commonwealth but to our planet and I think that's really, you know, exciting and I think we're in a position where we can act now that's going to pay dividends, not just in the short term, but certainly in the long term, so very supportive, want to be helpful and certainly are very grateful for the opportunity to offer some comments and to see additional investments made in our community. Thank you.
[ROY:] Thank you Mayor Driscoll I do not see any hands raised on the uh, the board. So I don't see any questions, but thank you for your thoughtful testimony, your great work up in the city of Salem and you talked about the analogy with the Life sciences center. I that's something we took into very deep consideration in the bill that we are going to pull out this afternoon. So you're going to see some of that very language in the bill. So I ask you to take a peek when you get the chance and thank you uh and we'll see you soon. Our next witness is a panel and that is Representative sally kern in and Anthony callous Sabetta I apologize if I did not get your name but Representative Kerans is representative from danvers and she is here with Anthony who is the division safety and risk manager for uh the town of danvers. So the floor is yours Representative Kerans and Anthony
[REP KERANS:] [HB3913] thank you thank you Chair Roy great to listen to this uh this discussion of the clean energy transition legislation filed by the governor. Um my good fortune that my local bill is on the docket5919 for today and I have enjoyed every second of it. Um so I thank you for that um and I am here with my good friend Anthony Calascibetta who is the safety director for our the Danvers electric division, our municipal lighting plant. So this is really changing gears for folks. Um this home rule petition. Uh mr chairman was filed initially it was ready to be filed before Covid hit. Um it is house 3913 it would allow um the danvers electric division to employ the use of rubber gloves or work on power lines above 25,000 volts. I think Anthony can get into the particulars of that. Um Right now the statute only allows um in that section 129 C. Of chapter 149 it only allows use of rubber5984 gloves up to a certain voltage and as you'll hear from Anthony um working on these lines, it's either if you don't use rubber gloves, you're using hot sticks. I5996 will confess that the whole discussion gets sometimes a little bit scary. Um but Anthony can tell you why this is necessary and and they're confident it is still extremely safe.
Um So with that I will I will turn it over to to Anthony Calascibetta. That's okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. Can you guys hear me okay?
[ANTHONY CALASCIBETTA (DANVERS ELECTRIC):] [HB3913] All right, thank you for having me, Chairperson Barrett and chairperson Roy 13, Essex six Representative sally Kerans6033 I appreciate you guys giving us the opportunity to speak on behalf of this. So real quick. Danvers Electric has two distribution voltages once6041 23,000 volts. The other is 5000 volts. The 23,000 votes were all trained to perform as as the states in the in the section 1 29 C insulated insulated hotline tool which we call hut sticks. This was all well and good but with the growth6059 the damage over the6060 past. So I've been here 25 almost 25 years. We used to have an open wire concept now we have a spacer cable which is hendricks So you guys drive around the commonwealth and if you look up in the air you'll see the diamond shaped conductors on the top of the poll which is close in proximity.
So it's very difficult to work on those with Hunt sticks. We have a few um large commercial customers mass general abiomed Millipore an old neighborhood. We cannot take down these customers for routine maintenance. So we are asking if we could amend the rule to 25,000 volts phase two phase and 14 4 face the ground now just so you know real quick, you cannot work on conductors. Phase two phase. It's against both the OSHA 1910 to 69 rule in the APPA american public Power Association, it's one phase at a time. We would always cover it up. We will always try to de energize it but sometimes it's just not feasible. Um Our workforce is trained, we take safety very serious And I6126 think there's actually there's two other municipals that have this um, city of PVT municipal back6131 in 2006. In the town of Littleton Electric Light and Water Department 2010. So we are asking if we could have an adoption for this rule so our workforce can work6142 safely efficiently on the 23 K. V. Distribution, SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
thank you very much for your testimony to the both of you. We will definitely take a good hard look at that. Um I do not6157 see any questions so we will move on to the next witness which is Representative Michele Dubois Representative Dubois the floor is yours. Mhm.
Representative Dubois r is she still with us? Okay so we will move on to uh Representative Haddad Representative Haddad are you with us? So there you are. Beautiful chairman. Thank you.
[REP HADDAD:] [HB3318] Thank you. Chairs barrett and Roy I'm here to give testimony on a bill that I filed an act establishing enhanced environmental protection with regard to the commonwealth energy, electrical energy infrastructure. So the proposed bill will enhance resiliency on the electric grid. It requires DPU to consider various additional factors when approving infrastructure related projects for electrical6223 distribution companies. They include um having minimal impact6227 on the environment, requiring minimal usage of land that otherwise could be used6234 for public purposes have a minimal effect, minimal impact on health and safety of individuals living in the surrounding area, especially if the land or structures are located in an area um with an environmental justice,6249 population designation and allow for minimal disruption of roads and other public properties. So I'm hoping that the6258 the committee will act on this favorably and then if I may also um give testimony in favour of the the bill that the governor has filed and6271 I and from your conversations I guess I'm also going to say that I'm in favour of the committee bill that will be coming out soon.
Um you know, we right after we did the first procurement, we discovered that having the utilities as part of the procurement process was a mistake. So I'm so happy that you're realizing that now and um changing it. I also, you know, I've been one of the people who have pushed very very hard to get rid of the price cap. It's an artificial designation and as um both Mayor Driscoll and and mayor Mitchell indicated um we need to have more development in our area and um Senator Barrett, I understand that, I understand your reticence Um because6327 of the fact that we don't know6329 but let me just say that in what we have heard, we in Somerset have heard in the6336 proposal for the presidium group to come to us um all those questions are answered as far as um potential tax revenue $70,000 um starts for for jobs that as Senator Pacheco said, we don't even have names for yet and um so that I really I really want to make clear that we have lost out on a lot and you're right, it's because we didn't know what was in the other bids.
Um so we could make a really good value judgment. However, um I I think that we need to step up now and talk about the necessity for economic development in any further bids that, um, that are procured through our process. And so I want to thank you so much, um, chairs for putting out a bill coming forward. It's, you know, I I sometimes think I'm the one trick pony because I'm always always talking about offshore wind. But I feel that it answers so many questions6407 and answers the question of how do we greens are our economy? How do we move forward and procure in getting rid of fossil fuels to procure our power needs? And so, um, I will be so supportive of whatever the, the committee puts out because I really feel that you've taken your time and you've taken you've listened, you've really listened to all of us. You know, the mayor and I I know the mayor of New Bedford and I, I know have been almost annoying in talking about the need for southeastern massachusetts.
But I have to tell you being a community like Salem who has, who has been, um, for many, many years, the host of Not one but 2 coal fired power plants. I feel we've done our part in in supporting the state and supporting everyone and with all due respect to everyone. I think it's our turn, I think it's our turn for people to look down at6471 the South coast and say we're going to help you out. And there have been comments that the state of massachusetts is not going to subsidize the South coast. Well, I'm just here to say we have subsidized the entire state for a very long time. And so I thank you6488 for any um goodwill that comes our way. And and again, I would be very, very supportive of the, the committee's bill when it comes out. So thank you both chairs and I'm willing to answer any questions.
[ROY:] Thank you so much. Representative Haddad You have certainly been a pioneer and a leader in the offshore wind efforts6511 and value everything you shared along the process and I have been6516 following you for years on this topic. So thank you so much for all you have done. I do not see any questions.
[BARRETT:] No, I just want to join the chair and thank you for your6528 leadership. A few of you use Senator Pacheco. A few other folks have been stalwarts on all manner of issues involving energy and climate for decades. So I want to tip my hat to you as well. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you Senator. Thank you so much and we'll see you soon. I hope our next witnesses State Senator Adam Gomez. Senator Gomez the floor is yours
Now you're muted. Senator Gomez.
Sorry, I've been on you for so long
said impatiently, I apologize, thank you so much,
[SEN GOMEZ:] [SB2186] [HB3362] Thank you so much. Thank you. Chair Barrett and Chair6576 Roy and members of this committee for hearing me testify today in support of S 2186 H 3362 and act ensuring a healthy future for environmental justice communities. I filed this bill alongside my colleagues, Representative Ramos and Representative Livingstone and Senator Lesser uh to deter the polluting energy facility from being operated near the environmental justice communities throughout the commonwealth biomass facilities, jeopardizing the living of the lives of our families through the harmful air pollutants, state environments, state environmental health tracking data has shown that residents from my district already suffer from disproportionately high rates of asthma, heart attack, hospitalizations, poor air quality and the inadequate access to health care. In fact, Springfield was once the asthma capital in the of the United States at the proposed palmer biomass plant been allowed to6639 operate in my district.
Springfield would have no doubt held that ranking for years to come, impact future generations in our state's most vulnerable and disproportionately impacted communities, thankfully, the governor revoked the air permit for the proposed power biomass facility last year, but we need to make sure that facilities like this stay out and don't come back into the commonwealth, inviting these facilities into the state contradicts our state goals to achieve a net zero carbon emissions. It contradicts efforts that this legislature has made in recent years to reform clean energy laws. It is for this reason that I speak in support of this critical legislation and respectfully ask and request that this bill received a favorable report supporting this bill means supporting cleaner and brighter future for the next generation. Thank you chairs and members of6698 this committee for taking the time to consider this important legislation and please do not hesitate to contact me. Should I have to um answer any additional questions other than any questions that might come up during my testimony?
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
[ROY:] Well thank you Senator Gomez, I see no questions for you and thank you for your testimony and we will take a good hard look at your bill our next witnesses. Senator joan, lovely senator, lovely if you're here the floor is yours.
[SEN LOVELY:] [HB3913] [H4204] I am here Chairman Roy and Chairman Barrett, thank you for the opportunity to very briefly testifying two bills. I'm here to support H3913. That's the home rule petition that came up from Danvers regarding the livewire electric electric lines. I um to testify in support of that sponsor. I also want to echo the comments of Driscoll governor baker and others who have testified she and her dad in support of H 4204 and look forward to the diligence of the committee to put forth a great bill and that is it. Thank you mr Chairman.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, thank you for setting a standard for the great brevity and getting your points are truly appreciate it and you're even receiving some applause online so thank6782 you so much. Um I do not see any questions so we will move on to our next witnesses. Representative jake Oliveira Representative Oliveira if you're here, the floor is yours. I am.
[REP OLIVEIRA:] [SB2596] Thank you mr chairman and thank you to chair barrett and members of the committee. I probably won't be as brief as senator lovely, but I will try my best. Um, I'm here to testify on in support of Senate bill6809 2596 filed by Senator Comerford, I filed a companion bill on the House side that actually didn't get referred to this committee, but a different committee, municipalities, however, I do want to testify in favor of this bill that would allow municipalities to reasonably regulate solar sightings. So currently right now, section three of Chapter 48 prohibits any zoning by law or ordinance prohibits them from unreasonably regulating the installation of solar panels or solar energy fields within a community. This bill would actually clarify that language to add in a few other areas that in my opinion and several of those that are co sponsoring this bill feel would be reasonable to regulate. That includes protecting6854 public health safety, welfare preserving forest lands, agricultural lands, wetlands and and ensuring that they are compatible with municipal zoning, which I know many communities out here in western massachusetts have actually filed and are on the books while we all know the benefits of renewable energy, particularly solar panels that should not come at the expense of preserving open space and open lands, particularly in rural parts of massachusetts uh and communities. I know that there are several members and several folks here from the 413 that will testify later on in this hearing, but I would ask6894 that the committee um report this bill out favorably even though it is a late file. Thank you again, co chairs of the committee.
Thank you very much for your testimony. I do not see any questions. We will take a good look at your bill and uh our next witness, I see that Representative Dubois6914 has joined us so I will turn the floor over to Representative Dubois
[REP DUBOIS:] [HB3336] [HB3285] [HB3319] [HB3293] HB3362] Thank you for the opportunity. Today chairs Roy er and and committee members to speak in support of five E. J. Bills H 3336 filed by chair Madaro H 3285 filed by chair6939 day in H 3319 filed by rep Haddad Each of these call for. Um I'm sorry and then H 3293 an act regulating the location of generating facilities. Um I filed that one and H 3362 Representative um Ramos and act ensuring a healthy future for environmental justice communities. Um The bills, the first three bills all call out um These five, I'm sorry these five bills bring the people's pain from across the commonwealth to the state house, each with the urgent call to reform the energy facility citing board and closed glaring loopholes in the state's outdated site selection and permitting regulations for gas and wood combustion generating facilities.
The I request that the committee worked to pass all of these bills out favorably, and we vote on them as a combined bill this year. Currently, site selection and permanent regulations work against communities like mine in place to target in non white low income low power and communities of color for profit driven, unwanted and unneeded, dirty proposals by energy investment groups. 2022 in 2020 to my city of brockton, has spent 15 years and many hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting a gas investment group's proposal to construct a massive 350 megawatt gas power plant without care or acknowledgement7022 of the negative consequences for this to be built in the heart of the heavily populated city with some of the highest pediatric asthma and breathing7030 conditions in the state. The state's permanent regulations for site selection and permitting of gas and wood combustion generating facilities are no longer relevant to the market or our state's climate energy goals.
They respond to and support the old energy paradigm of the nineties where sacrifice zones and higher levels of pollution may have seemed unavoidable or pragmatic because the choices for energy were coal, gas, methane or garbage burning. But we are long past those times and we need modern regulations that are protective of public health, in place of value, on renewable clean carbon free energy production just like water takes the path of least resistance. So do fossil fuel energy investment groups enacting the combination of these five bills would go a long way to place necessary appropriate and market facing guard rails on the energy production in massachusetts that align with our commonwealth clean energy, carbon reduction goals and focus on wind energy. Thank you very much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Representative, are there questions of representatives7092 Dubois hearing? None, we will thank you for your testimony and seriously consider the legislation. Thank you very much.
[DUBOIS:] I would like to say anything you could do for South coast New Bedford and Fall rivers success brockton success thank you. Thank you. We're going to go on and see if Representative Nika Elugardo is with us. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Um we'd like to hear from7121 representative Elugardo if she's here.
Perhaps she will come by later. Representative Madaro
Representative Madaro with us. If not we can hear from him later dan mangan, is that mister morgan with us. Mr McCann is here. Oh thank you. Mr morgan I'm sorry, was that your voice? Let's hear from you and tell us what amsc7154 is. Mhm
[DAVID MCGAHN (AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR):] [HB3318] Thank you. Senator Barrett Chairman Roy and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of House 3318 which is an act establishing enhanced environmental protections with regard to the commonwealth electrical energy infrastructure, I hope the committee will give a favorable report on the bill. I am daniel McGahn Chairman and Ceo of american superconductor which is also known as AMSC, a publicly traded massachusetts based leading system provider and manufacturer of megawatt scale power resiliency solutions that orchestrate the rhythm and harmony of power on the grid. The company was created at MIT and I was educated at MIT. We currently manufactured products and air in Westminster massachusetts Where a global organization with several 100 employees and operations reaching into about 10 countries are home headquarters and manufacturing center is Massachusetts.
This past summer we brought online and energized Chicago's first resulting electric grid system or what we call Wreg. To imagine what Wreg is basically. It's a superpowered extension cord and surge protection system all in one that could enable interconnection of electrical assets that technically we're not able to be connected prior to the Abbot of this technology. The system on traps existing capacity that ratepayers have already paid for and harnesses a 2-4 times increase in system wide redundancy. Imagine what the internet did for computing networking together. Computer processing capability from a wide variety of sources to complete singular task. That's exactly7247 what the resilient electric grid regs system does for the electric grid. The principal engineering work has been completed to embark on a similar implementation like Chicago in boston.
Many other cities naturally are also examining our solution from coast to coast and everywhere in between. There's a known challenge in the city of boston as we have power problems each summer with the evolving load. the utilities examine our solution and has clearly admitted it is the less costly option. We believe that the utility needs the right framework to properly evaluate such solutions and manage their risks, especially in today's environment with sees risk to electrical supply as only increasing mhm We believe requiring the Department of public utilities to consider enhanced environmental protections with an7297 eye towards grid resiliency when approving electrical infrastructure is important. Um others have gone through specifically what the bill will do. So in the essence of time, I will get to the end of it and the heart of the matter. Um, this mission of overall reliability for the power grid is exactly the mission of our company and the value of the products we manufacture here in massachusetts.
The challenge with projects like this is they can go into the tens of millions of worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Our work with the utility shows7326 a project that approaches $150 million dollars in cost, but compared to alternatives on a direct cost basis, We're still 20-30%7335 cheaper. The challenge here is the risk, not the cost of utilities feel challenged to deploy new technologies because of the regulatory fear that they will be seen as taking steps to far by including other factors such as those outlined in the bill and focusing on the function to improve the overall resiliency of the power grid. We believe that this creates an environment conducive for utilities to feel empowered to deploy new designs and7362 not be as concerned about the regulatory risk. Thank7366 you for your time. I would be happy to answer any questions members of committee might have.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Mr Egan, are there questions
hearing? None at the present time? We want to thank you again for taking the time to testify and to focus our attention on that bill. Thank you. Thank you Chairman
I want to mention by the way that Representative paul Tucker who is a member of this committee has been present or does represent Tucker wishes to testify. Oh I'm sorry Representative Tucker You want to testify
and we would love to hear you.
Mhm. Uh Well maybe we can get representative Tucker later on right now, we have a panel coming7417 up Stacy Ruben, Dr Marcus, luna, dr Jonathan Jonathan levy and dr Harold. They represent a number of organizations including Environmental Justice and the Conservation Law Foundation. Do we have members7432 of the panel before us?
Mhm. This7438 is Stacy Ruben. I am here you know there's some light shining in your face or something. It's hard for us to to see you. Thank you. That's much better. That's that's tough. You were good there for a minute. Mhm. Mhm. Is this working, are you ready? Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much appreciate it.
Okay and I think they're our panelists are joining?
[STACI RUBIN (CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION):] [HB3336] [SB2135] Uh Thank you. Uh Senator Barrett uh Chair Roy, Vice chair Mark Vice chair Pacheco and distinguished committee members. My name is Stacy Ruben and I am the vice president of Environmental Justice at Conservation Law Foundation. I am pleased to be part of the Environmental Justice Table and supporting H 3336 S 2135 and act relative to energy facility, citing reform to address environmental justice, Climate and public health. Mhm. I am also a member of the broader coalition that is excited about this bill.
I thank this committee for your tremendous work at the beginning of this session to establish the road map law which provided the first environmental justice statute in the commonwealth and effort 20 years in the making the road map law requires certain agencies like the massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to integrate cumulative impacts review into permit proceedings, cumulative impacts review are necessary for decision makers to consider and determine whether additional polluting facilities and operations beyond the property boundary, contribute to public health, environmental racism or other forms of disparate impacts.
Yet, the road map law does not specify a change to the criteria that the energy facility citing board considers when reviewing a proposal for a new fossil fuel generating facility, electrical substation or interest state transmission line. Recently we saw the State of New Jersey enact a law authorizing decision makers to deny permits. Following a determination that a facility would result in cumulative impacts that contribute to adverse environmental or public health stressors. It's time for massachusetts to catch up to New Jersey and enact the next environmental Justice law to expand on the victories that we have achieved in the road map law, cumulative impacts requirement
Over the last 12 years. This citing7607 board has approved six fossil fuel power plants, of which three are in environmental justice populations. The board did not reject any power plant proposals or substation proposals in the proceedings for power plants affecting those environmental justice populations, residents raised concerns about being overburdened. Such concerns were not meaningfully addressed. The sighting board has also approved an electrical substation, numerous interest state transmission lines and other infrastructure running through and negatively impacting EJ populations.
The existing process is not working. I have been an attorney before the sighting board and working with residents in some of the power plant and other campaigns. We need changes that will result in a holistic and balanced review of how energy infrastructure is cited. The bill integrates a meaningful substantive analysis of cumulative impacts and authorizes the board to reject a facility if there is a cumulative burden getting us closer to the New Jersey law. Finally, the bill would lower the threshold of which facilities are subject to citing board review such as facilities involving the Springfield biomass facility that we've heard about and the peabody generating facility. I urge you to report the bill favorably out of this committee and work with the massachusetts. Environmental Justice Table and our fabulous bill sponsors and supporters to address any language questions or concerns that you might have. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. And why don't we7716 continue with members of the panel and then we can entertain questions To all four of you. That makes sense. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Mhm. Hello, I believe him. Am I up next?
[JONATHAN LEVY (BOSTON UNIVERSITY):] Hi, good afternoon everyone. I'm Jon levy. I'm professor and chair with the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University School of Public Health. I've done research on the health impacts as well as methods for cumulative risk modeling and adjustment analysis. So in my my three minutes, I just want to make a couple of points. I think one is that the way in which energy facilities are examined using conventional risk Cassidy is not really capturing the health implications for communities in the commonwealth. So I think as we know, conventional approaches typically look at things like ambient air quality standards are significant impact level for bright lines thresholds that are applied7776 the same regardless of the characteristics of the community and these analyses really do not give a nuanced understanding of vulnerable populations to the health effects of these exposures and the implications of increased exposure.
One thing that has been very clear in this field for some time is that the cumulative risk that's that's been approach7799 is actually the best way to capture the health effects of exposure that came about In a number of expert reports, including a National Academy report back in 2008 that said examining health risks requires look at background exposures, the chemicals that are being studied as well as other risk factors in the community and underlying disease patterns in the7824 community to understand what health risks are. And that committee explicitly said that includes you might think that there is a threshold of right line below with your safe. They're actually may not be a safe level or the safe level may be much lower in a community facing a number of other exposures. So the result is that communities with the number of vulnerable individuals are not having their health appropriately and accurately character. So a cumulative risk assessment.
A cumulative impact assessment approach that acknowledges there's background exposures that acknowledges the totality of chemical and non chemical factors and the resulting health effects and vulnerability attributes is actually the best way to get meaningful information about the of a new facility in a given location with with a given technology. The last point that I'll make is that the cumulative impact analysis that goes beyond7883 England at risk.7884 It really looks at kind of past president your burdens7887 of a facility right. It requires I think greater interactions with unities and greater insights from the communities on the implications along with analyses and I think oftentimes the reaction is that this it could be a call for much more expensive and complicated analyses, but the expert committees have very consistently said this can7909 actually be done done without a lot of extra analytic and that's and that's something that needs to be kept in mind. The tools that are generally utilized can be used and applied within a cumulative impact framework. I'll stop there. Mhm. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Why don't we continue with panelists? Mhm.
[MARCOS LUNA (SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY):] Thank you. I'll go next. My name is Marcos luna. I am a professor of geography and sustainability and the coordinator of the graduate Geo information sciences program at Salem State University. I am chair of the board of Directors of Green routes and I'm a resident of east boston and my research expertise in my civic engagement are focused on how to understand and promote environmental justice in massachusetts communities. So abundant research and the experience of numerous communities has made clear that the state needs to require a cumulative impact assessment and explicitly and transparently considers environmental justice for energy infrastructure, citing without explicit consideration, it's very likely that business as usual, will simply perpetuate the already unequal distribution of industrial and infrastructure burdens across the state.
We anticipate a considerable build out of new energy infrastructure as the state decarbonization and we should be thinking carefully about how both the benefits and burdens of this new infrastructure will be distributed and who will have a voice in how this happens. We already know how to integrate cumulative impact assessments into regulatory processes. Thanks to growing awareness about environmental justice and in many ways that social inequalities intersect with environmental inequalities. We now have robust examples of cumulative impact assessment and environmental regulation across the country, from California to New Jersey. More importantly, our own climate roadmap legislation here in the commonwealth has laid the groundwork for integrating cumulative impact assessment into environmental permitting this progress should be extended to the EFSB. The process also needs to explicit require assessment of climate change risks based on the latest available science. Currently, there is no such requirement in the EFSB process.
It's widely understood in the scientific community that many climate risks such as flooding and warming and extreme weather are accelerating and the risk assessments, particularly those based on outdated regulatory thresholds such as human flood weather maps should be treated conservatively with accommodation and clear planning made for worst case8058 scenarios, particularly in where there are vulnerable populations living nearby. We have excellent examples to8065 draw by for our neighbors in New york and New Jersey. And we should draw on those lessons. The planning needs to be clear and transparent so that we have assurance that it's been done properly and there's a clear line of accountability for the public8078 when it hasn't the state's recently passed. Climate roadmap requires more aggressive climate mitigation and cumulative impact analysis and better environmental justice integration around certain kinds of permitting. It's time to extend this logic to the sighting of energy infrastructure. Thank you. Mhm. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you professor and the 4th member of the panel.
[GAURAB BASU (CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE):] Thank you. I think I'm up next. Uh, my name is Gordon Basu, I'm a8108 primary care physician at Cambridge Health Alliance and the co director of the Center for Health Equity, Education and advocacy. Um, I'm calling into this um, testimony today and thank you chairs barrett and Roy and members of the committee. Um, hopping off my covid calls for the day. So I am8123 part of the Covid team who's calling patients who8126 are positive. I will tell you it is an unprecedented Day of positive results. And as I call my patients, um, each one have embedded stories, the lack of public health infrastructure, We have issues of poverty, racism, uh, and their consistent threads of concern, worry and feeling unsupported as people navigate this health crisis for themselves and their loved ones, the surge will end someday, and Covid will end someday.
But it's critical, I believe, speaking to you from the front lines that we use this moment to critically appraise what has gone wrong and how we move forward. And that that8166 fundamentally forces us to ask what world we want and what we need to get their and as a primary care doctor, it's critical, I believe that health and health equity become an organizing principle of how we make every piece of policy we do in the commonwealth and how we make a social contract one another. Uh, the reason why this bill resonates so much to me and I think is so thoughtful is because as we all know, health care system can no longer hold the needs of illness and disease in our society. It wasn't built in that way, it was not meant to work in this way.
Uh and my colleagues are taxed and and working beyond uh their capacity and resources. And so what is really needed is that health and health equity is embedded in every piece of what we do as a society. I'm extremely proud of what these committees have done and what our leaders across the Commonwealth have done to allow us to have statutory requirements to ambitiously decrease our emissions over the next 10 years. We have8228 re established ourselves as the national leader and climate change and its implications on health equity8233 and environmental justice. But in order for us to accomplish our goals and in order for us to make sure we put equity and justice and environmental justice at the forefront, it will be critical that we pass bills such as this that as we build our built8248 environment as we build our energy system at a clean energy future.
We have got to do the analysis of understanding the ways in which dirty fossil fuel infrastructure is disproportionately impacted my patients vibrant immigrant patient population um, and is embedded in issues of structural racism. This is the reason I feel so passionate about this is that we have got to be able to prove, uh, that we can do this kind of work that we can embed these kind of policies and accountability into every piece, whether it's whether we build our housing stock or energy systems. And so I think this bill is even more than simply the accountability and um, and the work that would be done through this policy. But it will prove to us that we are able to reshape our future by putting health and health equity as an organizing principle of every piece of our society. So I truly hope8298 this committee pushes this forward and thank you for your time.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you doctor very much for joining us. I'm going to ask members of the committee whether they have questions of this path.
[BARRETT:] I have some questions myself, but I want to start by thanking you all and8321 thank you all for working on the environmental justice issue and thanking you. I want to thank you for everything else you do to ensure that there is justice and fairness for all in massachusetts. I do have questions about this particular bill and and I'm a the legislature of course. So I have to drill down into the fine print and the fine print of this particular approach, which is radically different and the language we adopted two years ago in the road map. Bill raises a number of questions for me as you all know, this bill does not apply to dirty energy facilities. It applies to all energy facilities.
The key terms in this legislation as it's written, are facility and generating facility and with respect to all energy facilities, including clean energy facilities. The bill would effectively ban such facilities from environmental justice communities. It would even go further of course, because there are motes or buffers around environmental justice communities and depending on which provisions of this rather confusing bill you read Uh motes are anticipated to extend one mile, 2 miles or five miles from each BJP. Well, I want to mention that we've just heard from the governor and from the Mayors of Salem and New Bedford about the importance of onshore economic activity situated in their cities in connection with offshore wind.
But new Bedford is 78% environmental justice population, essentially the entire city once you take into account the motes Fall River, which looks forward to working onshore with Mayflower in several industrial sites, 77% Environmental Justice population, Salem, which hopes to see a renaissance of its harbour 45% Environmental Justice. The definition of facility and generating facility in this bill would essentially bar almost all the jobs that these environmental justice communities hope to realize and that is very troubling. Let me read some definitions here for you. There's a definition and current law in the current environmental8475 energy facility, citing board statute. Now listen carefully to these definitions because I need your thoughtfulness here, here is the definition of generating facilities to which all8489 your changes would apply. A generating facility is defined as any generating unit designed for capable of operating at a gross capacity of 100 megawatts or more,
including And this really raises questions about8504 whether any jobs can go to any environmental justice communities if this bill were to become statute, including associated buildings, ancillary structures, transmission and pipeline interconnections that are not otherwise facilities and fuel storage facilities. So that's the definition of generating8525 facility. Let's take a look at the definition of facility which this bill references time and time again. The definition of facility is a generating facility. And I just quoted that definition to a new electric transmission line having a design rating of 69 kilovolts or more which is one mile or more in length in a new transmission corridor. Think about this 3rd 1 A new electric transmission line having a design rating of 115 kilovolts or more, which is 10 miles or more in length on an existing transmission corridor.
Now, as it happens, ah, the key connection to um from the offshore facilities proposed in the offshore wind programme to on shore the transmission lines exceed those minimum voltage thresholds. So, you're now bringing into the ambit of this very far reaching proposed statute, all the transmission that would be connected to offshore8595 wind, but8598 also8598 any ancillary structure, which is an integral part of the operation of any transmission line, which is a facility, basically ancillary structures onshore or offshore would be covered by the statute because facility and generating facilities are the two key terms on which all the provisions rotate. Now, what would the bill do to all these offshore wind facilities and all ancillary structure onshore offshore? It would virtually prohibit them altogether. I will read you the language of the bill that you're proposing this committee adopt.
For example, this is uh section five, the board meaning the energy facility citing board shall approve a petition to construct a generating facility that includes all ancillary structures only. Mhm. If the board determines that the petition meets all of the following requirements. Here's one of them, the environmental justice impacts statement which has to be compiled demonstrates the finding of environmental and energy benefits Fall River to Bedford and hope for a lot of8672 those to the impact environmental justice populations without any without any environmental or energy birds. Now, I've read the decisions of the energy deciding facility is cited board with respect to Mayflower went, which comes ashore in southeastern massachusetts and situates its ancillary structures in Fall river.
There are many birds documented in the energy facility citing board review of Mayflower Wind, but there are compensating and offsetting benefits on balance. The EFSB found that this facility meaning the offshore wind facility delivered many more benefits to burdens. But it candidly conceded that there are both as of course, there always are to a large construction project of any kind, Right? Because among the burdens itemized by8723 the EFSCB are temporary disruptions due to dust from construction traffic due to from construction noise, from construction. And8732 then there are also always some inconveniences attended to the operation of the finished structure as well. If there are any environmental or energy burdens, everything is forbidden within an EJP And presumably within some of its moats that bars all onshore jobs for these E.J Communities.
Your language goes further than that, though. It also, with respect to your cumulative Impact assessment provides as follows, the board shall approve a petition to construct a generating facility only if the board determines that the petition meets all of these requirements. The cumulative Impact Assessment demonstrates there is no adverse public health, environmental or climate impact to the impact of communities as a practical matter, as the mayors of these cities know, well, there are always some hassles in connection with construction, ideally if we're vigilant, they are offset by the jobs created and by the benefits confirmed. But in this particular case, your language does not impose a balancing test. Mhm. It does not require that benefits outweigh burdens. It absolutely bans all facilities and generating facilities if there are any energy or environmental birds. So, my question to you and it's a it's a thought question.
Uh it's not that this is not an ideological discussion, This is a drafting discussion, How are we going to pass this bill and also create an offshore wind industry which is designed to to put the ancillary structures onshore within gateway cities, which are both environmental justice populations, but also cities and needs of jobs. Mhm. This bill would shoot down the offshore industry for for environmental justice populations which happened to predominate in New Bedford Fall River and substantially are found in most coastal communities. Salem included. How are we going to to move forward on both of these ideas at once? Ah the way this bill is written, we're not even close to being able to have both at once and troubles. Mhm. I'm happy to extraordinary words and no burdens, et cetera.
[RUBIN:] If the chairs would allow, I'd be happy to try to respond to that. Very thoughtful comment from Chair Barrett. Thank you. So as always, um Senator Barrett, you have a very deep review of the bills and I very much appreciate that. We are very interested in ensuring environmental benefits are prolific in environmental justice populations. And we also know that the energy sighting system is broken. You've heard testimony today and you will hear more from the subsequent to panels about how environmental justice communities have consistently raised concerns about these negative impacts, these burdens and the lack of benefits. There is a way to do this so that we get benefits to these communities and do the thorough review.
So the way this bill is authored and we would be happy to recommend some edits based on this discussion today. But the way this bill is written is to make sure that there's actually a thorough review that is done that considers the public health and environmental justice issues that have been raised time and again for decades, that have not been adequately addressed by the sighting board decisions. It would further add these additional seats to the sighting board of people who have the community view to make sure that we're getting this balancing test in there. I respectfully disagree in that this is setting up a complete bar on any renewable generating facilities. In fact, the whole point is to do the full balancing that considers the environmental burdens that have not been considered in the past.
So, um, certainly we want to make sure that the renewable energy projects move forward in eJ populations, but again, they need to, the exceptionally large ones also need to make sure that the burdens on the EJ9009 populations are considered and we feel confident that there is a way to do both. One other provisions of this bill that I'm particularly proud about is the requirement to do advanced pre filing engagement between a project proponent and the community. I do think a lot of the concerns around jobs designed etcetera can be addressed through meaningful dialogue before something is actually filed with the sighting board and so those discussions are really important. And this bill sets the stage to do that well, and hopefully9041 avoid some of the litigation and litigious nature that these9045 facilities draw.
[BARRETT:] Thank you very much staci. You do. You do agree with me that right now, the bill draws no distinction whatsoever between dirty facilities and clean that the only terms used are facility and that is a defined term that includes both and generating9065 facility. Again, a defined term and current law that includes both. So this this bill would come down as harshly on a clean energy project like offshore wind as on a polluting project like a oil based Peaker plant, wouldn't it? Has written
[RUBIN:] uh, I disagree in that. I do think that the burden of a renewable energy facilities are different and not equally comparable to a fossil fuel facility. So, I do think this bill contemplates that, but I hear your concern and we can certainly take this back and figure out with our champions, um, potential tweaks, but I hear what you're saying and I don't, I'm not as concerned and happy to figure out how we can address your concern and still get this bill moving forward.
[BARRETT:] Thank you. I would the bill is rife at the moment with these kinds of extremely troubling formulations. I would, for example, um, Point to a different section of the Bill I had been quoting from Section five. Section seven requires project proponents and those would include offshore wind developers to disclose the energy load forecast, demonstrating the local need for the facility. Think about that word, local, the section goes on to say that the board may only approve a facility if it's justified by long term local energy needs forecasts. So how could the energy facility citing board Were we to put this into law possibly approve any offshore wind development?
Mhm, whose impact and whose function is to serve an entire region? Uh It turns out that if it didn't serve the locality where the transmission line comes to shore, it would be shot down for all of massachusetts. This, this use of the word local appears nowhere in the energy facilities citing board and for good reason, inevitably these projects are regional. Why insert the requirement that mhm. The local load be also evaluated and projects rejected if the region would benefit, but for some reason the immediate localities needs had been addressed. What we're hearing this morning, is that a lot of these localities, I want the clean energy business, regardless of whether their local load needs have already been addressed. Can9236 you help us figure out why we're moving away from regional benefit to local benefit with respect to clean energy projects as well as all others.
[RUBIN:] Uh we recognize that energy planning is done at the regional level. Obviously this bill is not meant to implicate so new England or knee pool or other big planning processes. What we are trying to do is again um really add into this balancing equation, what is going to be the benefits and burdens for that community that is going to be in close proximity to9275 the facility. So I will say um you know, this bill was filed a fair bit ago, nearly a year ago and there are a couple of language edits that we are planning to propose to the committee, uh some around this idea of local because we have gotten some great feedback that that's a hard term to define. But absolutely, I think there is a need to just ensure what is the, the, the specific citing location needs to consider alternative locations and how those benefits and burdens are being balanced and considered. So this bill is aimed at doing that and the local need, piece of the language here that you have cited is really just aimed at integrating that balancing of local burden and benefit.
[BARRETT:] There's a little bit of a trap in this language isn't there? Because if we assume for example that a major energy generation project, let's say a large solar field is situated somewhere in western massachusetts to serve new Bedford Fall River, mhm Salem mhm Waltham, any number of Lawrence law, the retention of the word local would cause the ESFB to have to reject the solar field in Western Mass because it was serving not local needs, which may be very spare, but the rest of massachusetts. So when you go with local, you're not only shooting down potentially clean energy facility for fall river, you're also shooting down a solar project for Western Mass whose purpose is to situate the generation away from population centers but to serve those population centers. So you your current language and again, there are many, many problems with this bill. Your current language makes it9395 hard to situate a clean energy facility environmental justice population and makes it impossible to cite the facility away from an environmental justice population because a lot of these sparsely populated Western Mass towns are not diverse demographically. So we've got a lot of issues here. Don't.
[RUBIN:] Mhm. I will just say I very much appreciate your thorough review of the bill and this feedback. And the point of this bill is to recognize that for generations, the energy infrastructure has overburdened low income populations, populations of color and limited english speaking communities. And this bill is trying to change that equation. Um, we would be more than happy to work with the committee to try to figure out a way to achieve the goals of renewable energy generation and protection and benefits to EJ populations.
[BARRETT:] You know, this this bill has, has a passion to it and it's clearly directed towards dirty facilities of the sort that predominated in massachusetts 40 years ago and there are still around in decreasing number. The irony and it's sad is the draft of the spill in an era of clean energy, the one that is just about to begin. So you've written the bill? Looking backwards at the citing exercises. That should outrageous.9490 But you're bill of course will only have prospective effect. It won't have, it won't cause the shutdown of any dirty energy facility built in9500 the past. Instead, it will require determination of any clean energy built or site built in the future. So, you've got to you've got a bill that's angry about the past at a time when we're about to move into a clean9516 energy future. It seems to me that there is a a kind of tragedy here. You've written the wrong bill for the wrong era and every paragraph in it poses a threat to the clean energy industry or raises a serious question about its viability. So yes, the committee will look forward to working with you.
But I can't help but wonder whether you have written the wrong bill for the clean9546 energy future that we hope to enter and yet nothing in the current statute or in this legislation distinguishes or even attempts to distinguish between clean and dirty. So yes, there are many problems. Let me just ask you. And it's a final question. It's just an informational one because you raised this issue of preliminary project9568 statements in the very first page of the bill and there and I'm just curious you write As part of the statement. This is the language. Now, the applicant must identify the location of all environmental justice populations within five miles of the facility. What is the, the intent of invoking the five mile buffer, which of course exists with respect to the meter changes we made in the Clean Energy bill two years ago is the idea to once again Create a similar five mile buffer. That's a yes or no question.
[RUBIN:] Mhm. Yes. The intent is to create a five mile9609 buffer for information between the project proponent and potentially impacted communities
[BARRETT:] and elsewhere. In the draft, you you refer specifically without defining it to specific geographic area. I would suggest that everybody on the panel create a word search within the statute or the proposed bill of the terms specific geographic area or geographic area because of the, MEPA language, the environmental justice language we adopted beginning two years ago. But the ending, of course last year there is a similar term designated geographic area. A designated9655 geographic area is defined Uh to include one mile and five mile buffers. I assume the specific geographic area is meant to refer to the designated geographic area. And the result is that, as you say, we are asked to think that that once again, there will be one mile and five mile buffers.
Now, when you have a fall river, which is Uh 77% environmental justice populations And you have a new bedford, which is 78% environmental justice population. And you're now talking about one mile9697 and five mile buffers. Mhm. Again, you're essentially enveloping the entire the city in an environmental justice zone, which means no clean energy jobs because we're talking there about ancillary structures creating those jobs. I think there's a conceptual problem here and I think it's a profound one that goes to the heart of the bill. And yes, I do look forward to discussing this at greater length but I I wonder whether that mismatch I referenced earlier is the heart of the problem. So thank you for hearing me out and thank you for testifying before the committee today.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, thank you very much to the panel and uh I see that Representative Madaro has joined us back and so we will turn the floor over to Representative Madaro9758
9758 Mhm.
Representative Madaro are you with us.
If not then I will move on to our next panel which is mr chairman I was I was testifying but I was muted. I apologize. Oh, there you go. All right, well thank you and welcome back and thank you. You're going to have to start from the beginning though because we're not reading lips.
[REP MADARO:] [HB3336] Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Chair Roy. Chair, barrett members of the committee again. My apologies for missing you when you first called me But I'm grateful for giving me the opportunity to testify in an important issue impacting my constituents and many others in the Commonwealth following the panel that just spoke I to join you today in support of H3336 and act relative to energy facilities citing reform to address environmental justice, climate and public health. This9818 legislation would reform the energy facilities citing board, providing greater protections for environmental justice communities like mine in east boston and a more robust public process. I was motivated to file this legislation after seeing the process unfold firsthand in my own district in east boston several years ago, a new high voltage electrical substation was proposed for a plot of land cited on the banks of the Chelsea Creek in east boston.
From the beginning, residents felt there were serious issues with this plan located immediately next to a9851 highly frequented public park and adjacent to the largely working class immigrant community of Eagle Hill where I happened to9857 be born and raised the site of the proposed substation is in a floodplain with the record of flooding from the creek during storm surges. In light of these issues, opposition to the substation from the community was both immediate9869 and near universal. Uh, and I neglected to add that the proposed location is also directly adjacent to thousands of gallons of heating oil and jet fuel supporting Logan airport led by community organizers and grassroots organizations. Residents fought the substation through every step of the process, but ultimately, like all energy projects, the process reached the energy facility citing board, an organization little known or understood by the average resident and it was soon abundantly clear that the process was not designed with the community in mind.
We face numerous hurdles with the EFSB concerning notification and outreach to the neighborhood, lack of language, accessibility and inaccessible meetings. The process our neighborhood experienced was one designed to meet minimum thresholds to tick off boxes and not to truly9918 engage the community and listen to its voice whether through obscure notification, a lack of translation9924 services for community where over half of my constituents speak another language as a primary language, a language other than english as a primary language or meetings that were hard to attend. Often held in the middle of a workday. There were many pitfalls that limited accessibility to residents and may have led to some never. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, representative Madaro seems to have frozen. Let's give him a few seconds to see if he comes back.
Mhm Well, representative Madaro we will entertain you when, when you get your system9966 back up and running and at this point I will move to the next panel which is uh john walkie oh, there you are, what are you doing? Yes, indeed. Alright, Alright.
I'm not sure where I lost you in my testimony but I was explaining the process that my community dealt with with the proposed substation, the fact that things were not translated into other languages. That meetings were held during a workday which were totally inaccessible to my constituents and really it was only thanks to tireless efforts from activists in my community who did their10006 best to make up10007 for the gaps in the EFSB process that my constituents10010 were able to attend10011 meetings and voice their concerns and opposition10013 to this project. But despite near universal and well organized opposition from10018 countless east boston10019 residents, advocates,10020 elected officials, the EFSB recently10023 unanimously voted in favour of allowing the substation to proceed. The reality is when an entire community, an environmental justice community at that voices its opposition to a project10034 that will only compound the10036 environmental burdens and risks to residents and is10039 unanimously robust. It's abundantly clear that the process is neither representative nor accountable to the populations that most directly10047 impacts.
In10050 fact, in our research, we found that most the EFSB10053 decisions receive overwhelming if not10055 unanimous support by the board, regardless of10057 the host communities10059 position. This speaks to10060 a significant10061 flaw in the sighting process whereby residents feel like10064 their concerns10065 are not heard or even factored into the decision making process to address these issues. This10072 legislation makes several10073 important reforms at the EFSB First,10076 it adds environmental justice, public health and climate to10079 the sighting boards responsibilities, ensuring these these critical10083 factors are weighed when10084 making decisions. It would10086 require improved community engagement.10088 Prior to filing for environmental or citing board review of a petition to construct a generating facility or an oil10094 gas or substation facility. The10096 bill would also mandate a cumulative impact assessment10099 and environmental justice impact statement before approval10102 of any electric generating facility or oil, gas or substation10106 facility. And it would prohibit the10108 approval of electric generating facilities for some stations if the10112 environmental Justice impact statement shows that they10114 will result in public health or other harms to environmental justice populations.
Finally, the10120 bill lowers the threshold for what generating facility projects are10123 subject to citing board reviewing from 100 MW to 35. These reforms will improve the functions of the FSB,10130 making the sighting process more10132 accountable to potential host communities and more responsive to the priorities10136 of environmental justice, climate change and public health.10139 The10140 FSB itself has recognized the need10142 for such changes launching a public process on updating their10145 rules and regulations. And while I10147 certainly appreciate these10148 efforts, the10149 provisions of this legislation will be more comprehensive10151 and10152 will encode these protections into law now.10155 Although this bill will10156 not reverse the process that happens in east boston, it10159 will take the lessons we learned from this experience and many that came before10163 to ensure10164 that future10165 energy projects are cited equitably in communities across the commonwealth.
I want to thank the massachusetts environmental justice table for their10173 incredible support and advocacy of this bill and I10176 want10176 to thank my friends in east boston10177 and beyond who10178 joined today's hearing to lend their voices in support10180 of this important issue. And10182 lastly, Chairman Barrett, I heard the concerns10184 you raised on this10185 bill with the previous panel as we10187 worked with you to address10188 concerns on the environmental justice legislation that was ultimately enshrined into law and the climate road map bill. We would appreciate10195 the opportunity to continue this conversation in partnership10198 with you Chairman Roy and the committee to10201 work on the language of H10202 3336. Chair Roy10204 Chair Barrett, members of the committee, thank you for your time,10207 apologies for10208 the technological issues and I do hope10210 to see this bill ultimately reported out favorably. Thank you.
10214 [ROY:] Well, thank you very much, rep um Madaro10217 and thank you for your leadership on the environmental justice issues. You've been doing10223 some great work in that area and glad to see your continuing those efforts.10227 Let10227 me see if there are any questions10229 from the10230 committee chair. Barrett has a few questions. Chair Barrett,
[BARRETT:] thank you. Representative for your, for your eloquence you and I agreed on the importance of10241 environmental justice. The principle, I10245 have a lot of problems with the fine print of this particular proposed10248 bill. As you know, I listened carefully10251 to your10252 comments just10253 now and you referenced up oil fired and gas fired electric facilities and indicated that no way would they be permitted if there were any10266 negative community impacts. But of course you appreciate that the term oil fired and gas fired. Don't10271 appear anywhere in this10272 bill. The only terms around which10276 the bill rotates are facility10279 and generating facilities. So you do agree with me that10283 as written,10284 this10285 bill would bar a clean energy facility from10288 an environmental justice Population Justice, much as it would bar dirty energy facility. Private environmental justice. Population isn't10299 that at the moment, the way the bill is written,
[MADARO:] Mr Chairman, your concerns are10305 duly noted and we would love10307 the10308 opportunity to continue the conversation and10310 potentially amend the language to get it to a place where you don't have these concerns and we can get this reported out10317 favorably from committee. You did reference in previous remarks, um that this is legislation written uh for a bygone era. I would respectfully disagree because10328 east boston is10329 currently still10330 battling this misguided substation proposal. And we are not the only community10334 Mr. Chairman in the commonwealth who are dealing with issues coming10338 from the EFSB. So I am not uh dismissing your10343 concerns at all. Um Instead, I am10347 hoping to continue the conversation with you with Chairman Roy, with other committee members and10352 with your10353 staffs to hopefully get10354 this in a place um where the10357 the efforts to10358 make10358 the commonwealth10359 more green uh and the efforts to reform the EFSB are not mutually exclusive, but10364 in fact are working in10366 tandem to achieve the best results for all of10368 our constituents.
[BARRETT:] Thank you. Representative you mentioned transmission. So, I want to raise the10377 implications of this proposed bill10379 for grid modernization.10384 This bill, if made into line anything like its current10388 form, would not only10390 bar ancillary structures and fall river10393 New Bedford and Salem10394 from being built. If they relate to an offshore10397 wind facility, it would also pose almost fatal impediments10402 in the way of our modernizing the grid, which will take10405 place primarily onshore. The key definitions that I referenced earlier10411 facility and generating facility, both referred to transmission as well as to any physical structures.10420 And as written, this bill would bar new transmission10426 projects from environmental justice populations. It's not clear10431 to me how we're10432 going to modernize10433 the grid if we have10436 prohibitions in place which um protect environmental justice populations as we defined them in massachusetts, you may know that I'm a proponent of the California alternative to what we're doing in massachusetts, California alternative.
We won't discuss it here, but since we went10455 with a very broad definition of environmental justice population in massachusetts, the DOER is10461 produced maps of how many communities would be covered in this particular instance. 188 communities out of 35110472 have environmental justice populations. I grew up in the town of10477 Reading, Reading, an upper middle10479 class suburb these days has a one census block groups that consists of Tannerville the one senior citizens housing project that we have in Reading10490 because the10491 folks who live in Tannersville had very good incomes and lots of assets10497 in many cases, but no current incomes they qualify as it turns out10502 under the income thresholds in10505 the bill, the environmental10507 justice language that you've propounded so eloquently a year and a half ago. So Reading its senior citizens project is an environmental justice community now and that you can multiply the10521 reading example by so many. And you understand why suddenly we're not talking10525 about east10526 boston and Fall River10527 New Bedford, which deserve, I think10530 added measures of protection.
We're talking about reading where I10533 grew10533 up, we're talking10534 about Lexington. Lexington10535 is is an environmental justice population about about 55% of our population, I'm grateful to say is upper income but diverse in terms10548 of race. So we are an environmental justice town, you're not going to be able to put any10552 transmission in Lexington,10553 you're not going to be10555 able to put any electric transmission if this bill goes into effect in Lincoln10558 massachusetts, which I represent because10560 too qualifies as an environmental justice community, so does active,10564 so does newton. So when you got the definition wrong and we did10570 get it wrong, I humbly submit when we enacted the Climate Act, when you get the definition wrong, it10577 begins to have ripple effects because it becomes at risk becoming imported now into this10583 energy facility citing10584 board statute where environmental justice population isn't redefined, but it's clearly meant to10591 refer back to the very definition,10593 which puts Lexington Lincoln Newton And reading10597 off bounds for transmission improvements, when are we going to take a deep10604 breath um, take a10606 step back and make10608 sure that we're not sabotaging our clean energy future with respect to the10614 sighting of offshore wind and its ancillary structures10616 onshore but10617 also in connection with modernizing our transmission system. What do you think?
[MADARO:]10624 MR chairman,10625 thank you. I certainly think that you've given us some homework as the massachusetts environmental justice table to reconvene or10634 certainly10634 um, this bill was written with dirty energy facilities and minds like the substation being proposed in east boston and if there's some work that needs to be done to tighten up that10646 language to better distinguish between clean and dirty energy facilities, we will10650 have those conversations and10651 once again, we just appreciate the opportunity10653 to continue that10654 dialogue with you and your staff and the committee more broadly.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Thank you appreciate it. To10661 thank10662 you Representative Madaro I don't see any10664 other questions uh, and look forward to chatting with you more about the bill. So10671 I'll move on next to another panel. The panel is made up10676 of john walkie, Dwayne, Tyndall, paulina casa Sola and Andrea Nemeth And if10685 you please uh
go as a10689 panel uh,10690 start with whoever you'd like to start with, but go through10693 your entire panel and then we will address any questions there and I am getting10699 mindful of the clock. It is 2 30 PM.10702 Uh, we10703 are not even a third through10706 all of the witnesses10707 that have signed10708 on to testify. So, uh, if you could uh, exercise some brevity, I think you have heard what the issues are and uh, tell10717 your comments to that and you10719 may begin
[JOHN WALKIE (GREENROOTS):]10722 [HB3336] [SB2135] okay.10723 Um, I guess I'll kick it off10724 since I was the first one10725 name. My name is john walkie. I'll be speaking on the bill10729 that we've been discussing10731 33, House bill 3336 and Senate Bill 2135. I10734 work at Green routes, community based Environmental Justice Organisation, working in Chelsea and east boston and also an10740 east boston resident and over10742 the10742 past 16 years or so have been involved in environmental justice issues around greater boston massachusetts area. And one thing10749 that seems to be true in10751 terms of all these EJ fights all roads seemingly lead to10756 the energy facility citing10758 board massachusetts10759 has an industrial legacy that's left us with brownfields and10761 such. But when10762 it comes to new environmental injustices that our10765 communities, communities have to deal with more often than not its projects in the energy sector.
And hopefully, as has been highlighted here, future projects like10774 offshore wind will be a bit cleaner than what10776 we've had in the past, but they'll still have impacts uh,10779 and they'll still go10780 through a systemically flawed system that's implemented by the FSB um, if the system worked,10786 we wouldn't have so many people uh, with issues10789 and we wouldn't have so many people pushing legislation like this now. Um the most recent case that I've been involved in has been ever sources proposal for a high voltage electrical substation Eagle Hill10800 which my rep Adrian Madaro has just mentioned. Um and as he said, I think the attitude10807 of the EFSB towards communities opinion was10810 best exemplified by the hearing10812 on November 2017, we mobilized over 20 Spanish speaking residents to10817 take time out of their10818 workday to attend a hearing for which we had impressed requested interpretation on a project that would impact the playground10824 with their Children play daily and in response to the EFSB offered interpretation from spanish to english for the board.
But zero of the10831 proceedings10831 were interpreted to10832 spanish for10833 the residents who sat through four hours of proceedings um and rep Madaro had10838 mentioned some of the specific10839 cases of this particular project, but in10843 the end it's10844 not burning oil or anything and it's part of this new economy,10848 it's it's part10849 of the whole electrification. However, it's sitting in a neighborhood and taking10853 up more space in the neighborhood that10855 with all due respect to folks from new Bedford and from other parts of the state. We we carry the burden of Logan international airport, all supporting facilities and traffic, both ground and air, the new England produce center which10867 is providing produce for the entire new10869 England region and Eastern Seaboard the millions upon10872 millions of gallons of petroleum10873 products stored along Chelsea Creek and10875 hundreds of thousands of tons of road salt,10877 all necessary things for the benefit10879 of the region, but whose environmental and associated negative health impacts are most acutely felt by our community. Um, my time is running10887 low.
Uh, so as we see increasing10889 investment and10890 infrastructure related to10891 electrification as10892 a means to move us off fossil fuels, we're10894 worried that we're going to see the needed infrastructure located in our communities10897 like this substation. While the benefits of electrification will still remain out of reach for our communities, very few people in are driving10904 Tesla's and Chelsea.10905 Um, this is just as10907 relevant to Chelsea10908 as it is to brockton Springfield E. J. Communities that are fighting projects today. Not old projects, but peabody Peaker Plant were fighting projects today10918 that are going through10919 the FsB that does10920 not listen to community. Um, and it's10923 really critical to look at those cumulative impacts and the10927 FSB should be doing10928 that. And the, the language, thank you john your time expired a bit ago. Let's move on10936 to Dwayne.
[DYWANE TYNDALL (ACE):] [HB3336]10944 [SB2135] Thank you.10945 Um, Good morning. My name is Duane Tyndall. I'm the executive director of alternatives for Community and Environment10952 ACE for almost 30 years. ACE EJ Legal services program has10957 represented countless community groups and residents on the front lines10961 of pollution. I'd like to10962 talk a little bit10963 about one of those cases for nearly 15 years10967 we've been co counsel10969 representing residents of brockton and rest Bridgewater who are opposed to10974 a 350 megawatt natural gas power plant proposed for sighting in their neighborhood. As you may know, brockton is10982 an environmental10983 justice population that has one of the highest pediatric asthma rates in the state.10988 There has also been10989 a hot spot for COVID-19 multiple attorneys have come and gone from our office, but our commitment to10996 that case has never wavered because deciding and11000 permitting processes for polluting11002 facilities continue to be unjust People of colour in Massachusetts have11007 a 70 chance of living in one of the most11010 contaminated communities in massachusetts11012 For right residents, the chances of men, 1.9%, the brockton11017 and West Bridgewater residents raised a number of environmental justice concerns which were not adequately considered by the deciding11025 board.
Had this bill been enacted when the brockton power case was11030 before deciding board, it11031 would have likely made11033 a difference. What does living in a host community means for people like me? Rocks Baby has a aslund rate of11042 15.7%, which is the second highest in the city. Black Bostonians11046 are most likely to die11047 of lung cancer11048 than any other racial or11050 ethnic group. We are more11051 likely to depend11052 on11053 public transit and to live in the building that is not energy efficient, efficient or reauthorized. In11059 short, we do not see11060 the same benefits that energy11063 facilities including renewable and11065 electric11066 generating infrastructure provide to our wider, wealthier counterparts. As the state11072 is11072 crafting a path to net11074 zero emissions electrification would inevitably increase. We welcome the phase out of11080 diesel and compressed natural gas buses and the integration of electric vehicles in our communities.
As11088 that transition happens, it must be just, we should not see places like Roxbury and11094 brockton shoulder the burden of electrical substations, power plants or other dangerous infrastructure until and unless11101 the EFSB be considered and reject proposals on the basis of environmental justice or cumulative impacts of pollution11108 on our communities. Our communities are Roxbury Brockton Chelsea in Springfield must also read the benefits that electrification offer. We support H3336, Senate Bill11121 2135 because it will begin to correct the deeply flawed citing process, which is currently structured in a way that makes11129 it's difficult if not impossible For the black brown, indigenous and low-income residents11134 of host communities to be heard and to have input on whether these facilities are cited in11140 our communities. I asked you to report H3336 S 2135, favorably out11145 of committee. Thank you for your time and consideration piece. Thank you
© InstaTrac 2025