2022-02-15 00:00:00 - Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

[SEN CREEM:] As its name suggests, the next-generation climate roadmap Law creates a roadmap for Massachusetts to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. This bill was a tremendous accomplishment. Of course, it's only a start. Now, it's time for the hard work. It will take a partnership between the legislature and the governor to actually achieve net-zero emissions, and so that's why today's hearing is so important for that partnership. So we're here to hear the secretary on the progress the administration has made in implementing the Climate Roadmap law and in developing 2025 and 2030 emission reduction plans.

We also have an opportunity to provide our own feedback on what the 2025 and 2030 plans should look like and how other elements of the climate map should be implemented. This is a pivotal moment in our path to net-zero emissions. The Commonwealth is required to achieve a 50% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. A date that is not that far off. In recent months, several new potholes82 have emerged in that road to 2030. I know the secretary and the team have worked hard on the transportation and Climate initiative, which was intended to be the centrepiece of our efforts to curb emissions and I'm tremendously grateful for their efforts.

However, now that that initiative has fallen through, what is Plan B and how are we going to106 put it in place? The Governor has indicated believes we can make up for the loss of TCI using opera and federal infrastructure funds. I'm hoping today to learn how the administration is going to use those funds in place of the TCI. Past climate plans have focused on addressing transportation emissions through vehicle electrification.127 Although this is a major piece of the puzzle, I hope that 2025 and 2030 plans will also emphasize reducing vehicle miles travelled by prioritizing public transport, bikes, pedestrians and the development of dense walkable neighbourhoods.

In the148 electricity sector, the commonwealth has planned to reduce its emissions by Importing 1200 MW of power from Quebec but now the main voters have rejected that. Whether it is our Massachusetts contingency plan, I'm hoping to hear about that today. Recent weeks have also brought important developments for the building sector. The DPU approved mass saves three-year plan and thanks to reforms in that plan in the climate robot, it is a strong plan that will178 lead to meaningful emission reductions.

However, I was disappointed by several of the changes the DPU made particularly186 its decision to reintroduce rebates for some fossil fuel heating systems and its rejection of the Cape like compact proposal to equip 250 low and moderate-income homes with solar power and heat pumps. Last week the Department of Energy Resources released its straw proposal for the Net-zero stretch quote that the climate programme directed. I appreciate the hard work that went into the proposal, but again it didn't go far enough and I felt disappointed.

The draft Net Zero code would not represent a path for cities and towns to restrict the use of fossil fuels and new development. My hope is that we can convince you that the final version of the Net Zero stretch code will give them that fossil-free option. Fossil fuel infrastructure that we put into new buildings today will have to be replaced238 before its useful life is over. So the commonwealth should be encouraged fossil fuel development to the greatest extent forward. Again, I look forward to discussing the administration's plan for building sector emissions this afternoon.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

[SECRETARY THEOHARIDES (EOEEA):] Thank you, Madam Chair and good morning, I'm pleased to join you all today to give an update on the implementation of Chapter 8 of the Acts of 2021, an act creating the next generation roadmap for Massachusetts Climate policy and to provide an overview of the actions the Baker administration has taken over the last year as we seek to rapidly implement this legislation while continuing to push forward all of our ongoing policy objectives.

First, I'd like to thank Chairperson Creem, Vice-chair Barrett and all of the distinguished members of the Senate Committee on Global Warming and300 Climate Change for convening today's hearing, it's great to be with303 you and of course, for all of your work on the commonwealth's efforts to achieve carbon net-zero by 2050. I am also joined today by a number of members of my team both in person and virtually; Commissioner Woodcock and undersecretary Card are here, undersecretary Ching is on screen virtually as well as Commissioner Suberg and I have a number of other folks here.

The reason we have so many is that climate change touches every branch of our secretariat and all of the work that we're doing across the energy and environmental space. Less than one year ago, as you are all very well339 familiar with, after significant discussions, Governor Baker signed Senate Bill 9 into law and since then, we've made significant progress in the commonwealth. Climate policies driven by this act, as well as other developments. As you know, the accent in the statute in the commonwealth submission reduction requirements set in statute the commonwealth submission reduction requirements of at least 50% below 1990, statewide emission levels by364 2030, below 75% by 2040 and net-zero by 2050.

To assist in these efforts, the act enables the commonwealth to take new actions from updating our building code and appliance standards to setting economic sector-specific targets for the coming years. The intent of the road map act is to focus on reducing the release of carbon emissions from all sectors of the economy and we know we are in strong agreement with all of you when we say that nowhere is more important to begin that work than in our building sector. This has been a priority for many of403 you, including Chair Barrett.

Massachusetts has an ageing housing stock and we can expect homes and offices built today will be in active use in 2050 and beyond. We also have a difficult climate; cold in the winter, hot in the summer with this old building stock. Recognizing this, the legislature working with Governor Baker took significant steps to reduce emissions from the building sector by granting the Department of Energy resources the authority to adopt the stretch energy code and issue a new specialized stretch code for willing municipalities to adopt.

That's often the way we move things forward here in Massachusetts, letting some communities go first who are ready and bringing up other standards to help lift additional communities up. For adding context to these efforts, the legislation allows Massachusetts step three tiers in the building code and you'll see them here. The first is the base building code which is overseen by the Board of Building regulations and standards or the DBRS. The second is the stretch energy code, which is a municipal often code and a requirement for green community status that the Department of Energy Resources may update with consultation with DBRS.

Lastly, the new specialized Net-zero code will have further requirements and will be available for municipalities to adopt this December. In order to measure the benefits and efficiencies of the residential code, Massachusetts uses what's called a home energy rating system, which is sometimes shortened to hers and we just wanted to go through this a little bit to give you some background on how we are updating our code using this system. So the system allows506 the commonwealth to calculate the benefits of the code components and its costs.

As of 2020, 87% of new homes calculated their energy use with this system and scored an average of 51. The present base code requires buildings to be built to 55 and we are looking to move the new proposed stretch code into the 42-45 range for hers, which you see there as you're moving down into 2021, There are currently 296 green communities who use the stretch code so that's a good majority of our commonwealth and we know, based on discussions with all of you and with cities and towns that there are communities who are interested in554 going further faster and that's what we're seeking to do with a specialized stretch code.

Last week, after significant work and meetings with stakeholders and discussions with all of you, the Department of Energy Resources released its straw proposal for public comment and review. The department has spent the last year-plus, I would say conducting studies and modelling thousands of code forms for every building type and use to find the point where the stretch energy code will reduce emissions from buildings and lower the cost of building electrification, which is a really significant part of achieving net-zero.

We have to find the balance where we get the most emission reductions from the code at a cost that is affordable and does not increase the cost of new housing stock or decrease the production of that housing stock in Massachusetts where we have a significant issue with the cost of housing. The stretch code and net-zero code proposed are requirements of hers, 42 for fossil fuel heated homes and her is 45 for homes that use electric. Commercial multi-family units would need to meet the herd's requirement of the residential code and under net-zero code passive house, there would be a requirement for low rise multi-family buildings to be a passive house.

Recognizing that commercial buildings come in a multitude of forms and uses the code provides several pathways to meet the requirements while achieving the emission reductions necessary to meet the act and again, important to build flexibility into the development of this code. So there are multiple pathways to achieve her ratings required by the code. Under the Net-zero662 code, buildings would need to meet all of the requirements of the stretch energy code plus additional and significant stipulations.

Studies have shown that the cost in transitioning buildings from fossil fuel use to full electrification comes from the required retrofits to a building system. While the Net Zero code does not ban gas use in buildings, those buildings that do not opt to use gas will need to be built with additional pre electrification measures that do opt to use gas will need to be built with additional pre electrification measures. Buildings that choose to use gas will need to construct on-site solar and for multi-family buildings, they will need to meet increasing passive house requirements.

We believe that when taken together these measures will encourage the construction of all-electric buildings and prevent additional costs in the future. In fact, the stretch code updates themselves, dear, towards electrification because of the cost coming down. We expect that there will be numerous questions on the code and so we have our full team from the Department of Energy Resources here who can answer additional730 questions. Along the same vein as the steps taken for the building code, a big push and an update in the Climate Act itself came to the three-year energy efficiency plan and so our 2022 to 2024 energy efficiency plan or our mass save program works to incentivize electrification of our current and future building stock.

The Road Map Act made several important changes to the program's plans to shift the focus away from energy efficiency alone and reductions in energy use and towards emission reductions and hitting our climate targets, which we believe is an important shift. The road Map Act requires all energy efficiency plans, to meet carbon emission reduction goals. In July of this784 year, I issued the first emission reduction requirements for an energy efficiency plan. The goal of 504,000 metric tons of carbon and 341 metric tons of carbon emissions reduction for the electric and gas plans respectively was required through that action.

The act also updated the review process for these plans by giving the Department of Public utilities a full mandate to not only consider cost and reliability, but also equity and reducing carbon emissions in all matters that come before it. The act also requires the DPU to consider the benefits of the social value of greenhouse gas emissions as it evaluates the cost-effectiveness of this plan. These were all key changes that better align the plan with our climate change targets. After the issuance of the emissions goals, the energy efficiency advisory council or the EEAC worked with the program administrators from the utilities to rewrite the draft plans to achieve these goals.

Once they came to an agreement, the plans were filed with the Department of Public utilities who carefully considered them under the new legislative mandate. The result was the commonwealth's largest energy efficiency plan ever, a total of $9 billion in benefits to residents of the Commonwealth, this includes $4 billion dollars in investments in energy efficiency, including strategic electrification, 800 million in incentives for heat pump adoptions, 650 million in equity initiatives targeted at isolated language, customers,879 renters and small businesses, and 640 million in incentives for income-eligible home weatherization.

For the first time,888 the plan includes specific performance incentives for an equity initiative that must be met before any incentive is granted. This plan prioritizes equity and the removal of barriers to electrification. The road map act also made significant and long-thought updates to our appliance standards for energy and importantly water efficiency. Our appliance standards have held Massachusetts back in the last year from achieving the top spot in the American Council for the energy-efficient economy, the EEAC triple-state energy efficiency scorecard. Massachusetts came in second to California last year and thanks to the work of the legislature, this update will help bring us back up to par.

The DUR conducted public hearings last September and the final regulations went into effect in December of 2021. While some products already meet these standards, because California has the standards and obviously controls a lot of the market for these products, the Legislature946 included a delay to allow for updated products to make their way into this supply chain. It is expected that those that don't will no longer be sold in stores by the end of the year.

Again, for many of these items on this list here, because California has appliance efficiency standards that were at a higher level, we expect most of these to be ready to go in fairly short order. At the end of last year, the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act also was required to take significant steps towards implementing the first round of changes created under the road map Act. Under the act, an environmental impact report is required for all projects that require a state permit to assess that there is an unfair or inequitable environmental burden on the local community.

This January, the new environmental justice protocols, including additional public outreach for projects and expanded analysis of impacts went into effect following significant stakeholder conversations led by our MEPA director. While it is too soon to say what impact this will have on the type of projects that come to MEPA, it is safe to say that we can expect to have a better understanding of the impacts on communities before projects move forward. MEPA is now moving through the 2nd phase of a holistic regulatory review as it works for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection to develop a cumulative impact and analysis of air permitting, which looks not just at new projects, but the entire environmental burden and history on a community as you move to permit a new project.

The road map act also created a clean energy equity workforce and market development program under the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, they have beautiful slides as you can see from this diagram but the program is intended to help support the residents of environmental justice communities, minority and women-owned businesses and former1063 workers from the fossil fuel energy sector or other sectors to transition to jobs in the clean energy sector and ensure that these communities which have borne the brunt of our present energy system, have full access to the benefits of a clean energy economy and are supported as we move through this transition and achieve our climate goals.

Mass EEA has not even had a full year yet to implement the program, but they have made significant strides. During the most recent round, Mass EEA provided 16 awards totalling 4.5 million to women and minority-owned businesses that work in fields critical to the commonwealth climate goals. To date, the program has supported 50 existing firms and helped create another 15. Mass. EEA has also begun to work directly with the regional employment training programs within environmental justice communities to develop multi-year programs for job training and placement in the clean economy.

In the most recent round, Mass EEA awarded approximately $760,000 for organizations based in Environmental Justice communities to develop program plans furthering the Baker Polito administration's efforts to provide access into this sector. I think most significantly, the road map acts updated the state emissions limit and sets in statute specific emission requirements for the commonwealth to meet statewide. That allows for sector-specific emissions supplements to be established to1153 ensure all sectors of our economy are working to achieve these goals together.

As previously stated, the act requires the Commonwealth to reduce1163 emissions below 50% by 1990 levels, 75% by 2040 and then achieve net-zero by 2050. There are significant requirements and obviously, there is work ahead both to plan the policies that we need to implement and to implement those policies. EEA has been developing the updated plan and under the statute, the new plan must be completed by July 1st of 2022 and we are on schedule to meet that target. Looking ahead to the updated clean energy plan, we1192 will need to address transportation and buildings are the largest emitters of carbon emissions in our economy.

More than 50% of all emissions that we need to cut come from personal transportation and residential heating space which is why our proposed building codes promote pre electrification to prepare for fully electric homes and vehicles while we continue to move our electric generation to renewable sources and upgrade the electric grid. In the nearer term to achieve our emission requirements for 2030 again, we will need to reduce emissions across all sectors.

Under the road map1238 act, the legislature has empowered the executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs1243 to set sector limits and supplements and so as part of the 2025 and 2030 Clean Energy and Climate Plan, we have been reviewing sectors to align our current greenhouse gas emissions with the categories laid out by the statute and expand upon those where we need to. As part of the interim CECP for 2030, we have been refining how we track emissions and making improvements to our system that we can improve our emissions setting process itself.

Working with the EP and stakeholders, we are revising our emissions tracking to capture data on annual net emissions on an annual basis and gross emissions have been reported for several years in Massachusetts has not tracked what emissions have been removed and how. So updating our planning process will better allow us to track the benefits we get from natural working lands, forests and other green spaces and was a key part of the climate law as well. In the past decade, Massachusetts has made significant steps in reducing emissions from the electrical sector and will continue to do so through our offshore wind procurement process, the renewable energy portfolio standard and a clean energy standard.

In November last year, Main held a ballot referendum that has thrown the transmission project which was expected to bring Massachusetts significant clean energy into question as the chair mentioned. While we wait for that project to resolve itself and move through the courts, we are continuing to work to procure the clean energy that Massachusetts needs. This fall, the Department of Energy Resources, in conjunction with the utilities, completed the third procurement of offshore wind generation. This procurement round was the first1355 with an increased wait for economic development and diversity equity and inclusion in the evaluation of projects.

Two projects, the largest projects today were selected for the full 1600 MW of generation with significant economic development for new Bedford, Fall River and Salem. The selected bids are now in negotiations with the EDCs and we expect the contracts to be submitted for approval by the DPU this spring. With the completion of this round, Massachusetts will have procured 3200 megawatts of1386 the 5600 megawatts of offshore wind generation that the legislature had authorized.1391 I think this moment and Senator Barrett and Senator Pacheco were with us to celebrate was quite a turnaround from two years ago when we feared we could not get the very first project done.

So this has come a long way, we know these big projects will occasionally have setbacks in them as we're seeing right now with our hydro project, but this is part and parcel of the project and we continue to move forward on procuring these clean energy resources. Finally, I would like to take a moment to mention the withdrawal of Connecticut from the transportation climate initiative, which left Massachusetts unfortunately alone in its efforts to reduce emissions from the transportation sector through a cap and trade program.

We know this program would have benefited the commonwealth, the policies were designed well, states had really structured a very sophisticated cap and trade program to create a market for transportation sector emissions but Massachusetts alone was not a big enough market and we had always said we would not move forward if there was not a regional collaboration. So we'll continue to work with our colleagues at the Mass dot to ensure Massachusetts hits1465 our goals for reducing emissions from the transportation sector and increasing access and use of electric vehicles across the commonwealth.

The recently passed bipartisan infrastructure bill provides significant support for our transportation decarbonization efforts and to be perfectly honest with the committee, I think one of the reasons other states backed out of this was because of the infrastructure bill coming down the pike and realizing that there were going to be significant federal funds to support many of the investments we were going to make through TCI. Do I think the infrastructure bill alone for the next decade is going to be1503 enough? No, I do not. We will have to reconsider things like cap and trade policy at a regional level in the future.

Do I think this will help us meet our goals in the short term? I do very much. The funding is significant. Massachusetts is expected to receive $9.5 billion in total funding to the Commonwealth including 5.4 billion in highway formula funds, 2.2 billion for the MBTA which was a significant part of our TCI Investments, 591 million in regional transit authority formula funds as well as 1.4 billion in both formula and discretionary funds for environmental work. We are expecting around $63 million for EV charging infrastructure.

Again, an important investment that was going to be made1548 through TCI and $18 million dollars for transportation carbon reduction programs. The BIL also includes significant competitive grants that are awaiting guidance from the federal Department of Energy and the federal Department of Environmental Protection. In total, there's roughly $8 billion in competitive grants that Massachusetts will be very competitive in seeking because of the work we did to design policies and spending streams under our work with the1576 transportation Climate initiative.

So in closing and then I'm happy to take questions, as we transition off of fossil fuels, it's very important to encourage the development of all forms of clean energy here in the commonwealth and we have sounded a bit like a broken record on this, we can't sink all of our eggs into one basket, whether it's offshore wind or solar or hydro or future technology we don't even know of yet. We are a state that has innovators and people who are going to come up with the climate solutions of the future. We can't possibly see what all of those are yet and moreover, we want to keep those people here working in this sector in the commonwealth.

So we were very proud to announce the selection of the two new offshore wind projects in December and as we continue to work to deploy wind off our coastline, we need to push the envelope further, which is why the governor filed H 4204, an act to power Massachusetts clean energy economy. Importantly, while it makes a number of changes in the offshore wind space, it also deploys a $750 million federally funded pool of money for the Clean Energy Centre that would invest in these new climate tech solutions to solve our energy challenges as we move forward to ensure the adoption of new technologies and to create the workforce of the future. So I'll stop there, I am very grateful to this committee and to the Legislature for their continued focus on climate change and hitting our greenhouse gas emission targets.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

[CREEM:] I have a bunch of questions I'm going to ask a few because I know other members have questions and if there's time I'll come back to mine. I know that there's a new stretch code and some thought it was great and it did move but it didn't, I didn't think it moved far enough. So is the administration willing to consider amending its proposal so that the net stretch code is a fossil-free option, in other words, we don't encourage people to heat their homes with what they are and that they are required not to use propane but to use fossil-free options, electrify heat pumps? Are we willing to make changes to that new stretch code?

[THEOHARIDES:] The proposal we've put out is a straw proposal and we are certainly seeking stakeholder input from that. What I would say is that our proposed updates and the new code really speak to strike the balance between energy efficiency and cost and to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to achieve net-zero by 2050. What we've done through the code is make the case for electrification really strong based on the cost. The high energy efficiency required of the new build buildings to go home energy rating system will drive people towards electrification because it will be cost-effective. We're trying not to do is mandate that certain technologies be used or that each homeowner needs to produce energy for themselves.

[CREEM:] Well, you know that we have a lot of municipalities who have already filed for a request to require the hookups to be electric and not allow fossil fuels. So we're dealing with the request home rule petitions1812 by the municipality,1813 so it is a very popular request and I'm just throwing it in there that you can amend the code to make it a requirement rather than giving people the option at this point. I think it's shortsighted, you may save money now, but in the long run, it's not going to help and it will really affect other people. So I'm hoping that you will make those changes?

[THEOHARIDES:] A note there, that a challenge with letting some people come off of gas or requiring them not to is that1851 you leave customers on the gas system who are at least able to make the change and end up paying the cost and bearing the brunt of the costs for the remaining gas system as we transition away from it. We absolutely need to make a transition. It just needs to be an orderly transition, which is something that we're looking at right now under the Department of Public Utilities 2080 order, as well as through our future of Heat Commission under secretary Chang chairs.

I think this code will continue to morph and evolve but it's not something you can just snap your fingers and say, all right, town A, you no longer have to have gas hookups because we do think that will keep housing stock from being created and people from being able to move into new communities.

[CREEM:] Okay. The next question I have is the climate roadmap law directed the Governor to appoint three new members to the board of building regulations and standards, do you know when those appointments will be made?

[THEOHARIDES:] They are definitely in process and I believe being vetted, they are clearing background checks now so those should be imminently happening. We will absolutely let you know, but we're pleased to have that expertise added to the DBRS.

[CREEM:] Okay. So, I've been through our hearings interests in the Zev and Massachusetts will adopt several California regulations that would promote the adoption of electric vehicles. Has the administration explored any of those California's clean mild standards, which sets ambitious electrification goals for transportation network companies? Have you considered that in your desire to meet the goals?

[THEOHARIDES:] We follow California in many ways as a clean car state so any of their clean air regulations we adopt and as you know, we've also adopted the phasing out of ice vehicles by 2035 for new sales but commissioner, Suuberg, do you want to speak to this specific program if you know of it? I'm not sure I've seen it.

[COMMISSIONER SUUBERG (MASSDEP):] I think you're right, secretary and thank you to the chair for this opportunity to speak. Mostly, what we've been implementing is the clean car, emissions rules, and we have been following California closely. We've been working with other states on the Mass com, the Northeast collaborative to make sure that our air and climate policies are consistent. With respect to this particular program, I might in turn differ to Christine Kirby of our air program and see if she has any additional background on it.

[CREEM:] So if I might just before, I'm trying to be specific, it would be Lyft and Uber, our transportation network companies, which California2019 was so successful in increasing the use of electric vehicles by making some requirements for our transportation network companies. That is in particular, I have a few other California prose, but, that is the one I have in mind. So, I'm sorry, go ahead, Commission.

[CHRISTINE KIRBY(BUREAU OF AIR AND WASTE):] Yes, Christine Kirby, I'm the Assistant Commissioner for the Bureau of Air and Waste and I've worked on the California program for many years and we are looking at those programs, California has not finalized them yet. So once they do, we will be looking at and we're looking at that at a regional level too because we like to working2062 lockstep with other states. So we are, we are looking at it and we'll be happy to provide an update once California does finish its work.

[CREEM:] My understanding is that California has been successful, so I'm glad that you're looking into it. The other program is are we working with dealerships to provide more incentives at the point of dealership that would be a tremendous advantage to be able to get the credit queen of sale?

[MS(???):] I can respond to that, Chair. First, that was in our interim CECP, we do think that all things equal a point of sale rebate would be preferable than an after the fact mail-in rebate, which currently exists. We have had discussions with the states that do operate that type of model, I would note that we are trying to ensure that we have a predictable revenue source. We are going to make this change.

The Legislature did extend for six months the Reggie utilisation for the purposes of the more RV program but it will expire at the end of June. We certainly want to work with the Legislature to have continuity and allow this type of programmatic change with a long term planning forecast. So it is something we're looking to implement but would want to continue working with the legislature to ensure that there is funding available past June to support that program.

[THEOHARIDES:] That's significantly important, getting that funding available and we2165 can look forward to more discussions on that point.

[CREEM:] Have you considered that there needs to be some sort of additional funding, a source of funding to keep that program going?

[MS:] Yes. So we have started to see thankfully an uptick in rebates that does put pressure on our revenue sorts which have been our regional greenhouse gas initiative. We have worked with the Legislature to devote a greater portion of Reggie dollars for this specific purpose but that does expire at the end of this June, so if we are going to make a change in the program, we would want some long term clarity that the funding would be available to support the program.

[CREEM:] Is the administration considering a proposal that would look at that kind of funding so that the program could continue?

[THEOHARIDES:] Not as a stand-alone, we probably looked to incorporate it into something that the legislature is moving forward. It's a small change that's needed, it could easily be an amendment.

[PATRICK WOODCOCK(COMMISSIONER EEA):] Just to be clear, there was an extension in December to extend it through June but when you're discussing fundamentally changing the program to have a longer time horizon, would be useful and it would be through a budget supplemental that something like this would be considered.

[CREEM:] Okay, would you consider also a better rebate program for hybrids during this short period of time until we have more utilization of electric vehicles?

[WOODCOCK:] So hybrids are eligible for our more RV Program now.

[CREEM:] But that is a very small rebate, have you thought about increasing that?

[WOODCOCK:] Again, I think we look at just the amount of money and ensure that we're getting a good return for greenhouse gas savings depending on the vehicle type but for instance minivans and larger vehicles, we do see that as an important aspect of the program going forward.

[THEOHARIDES:] We do see the need to steer people to full EVs as being a heavier lift and therefore requiring a more robust incentive than the lift to a hybrid.

[CREEM:] But they're not really available for everybody so that's the short term to the hybrid, we could introduce that. It's better than nothing. Alright, I have one other EV. In the 2030 Clean Energy and Climate plan released last year before the climate road map was passed, there was a heavy focus on the electrification of cars and vehicles. I support the electrification of2337 our vehicles but believe we need a multipronged approach to reducing transportation emissions. Another option is to reduce overall vehicle miles travelled, whether through model shifts or through a land-use strategy. How2352 will the 2025 and 2030 plans prioritize the reduction of the vehicle miles travelled?

[THEOHARIDES:] That was something we heard loud and clear both in the feedback given on the draft of the plan as well as in the new funding streams we're seeing come out of the federal government particularly focused on walking and biking and accessibility of non-car oriented routes and we're seeing a lot of opportunity for that coming out of the pandemic as well where people are able to work from home.

They want to be able to walk down the2392 street into their community and to have that feeling of walkability, bike-ability and community centres and so much of the funding that is coming out of the infrastructure bill in the transportation sector has ruble for public transit and for more accessible non-car traffic. Judy, I don't know if you'd like to add anything specific2414 to the plan, but Judy Lee is leading our work on the clean energy and climate plan. So I'd like to give her a moment.

[JUDY:] Yes, thank you very much. I just want to add to what the secretary had just mentioned that we're also working with our partners at HED about the MBTA communities because we think and as you have pointed out, Chair, that these are longer-term decisions and sometimes they're much more related to land use policies than they are just incentivizing people to drive a different car. So we are working with our partners at HED as well as Mass dot to to set policies in a long term to transition more towards away from cars and really moving the population to live closer2461 to MBTA locations or public transit locations. So that's our strategy for the new clean energy climate plan.

[CREEM:] On another topic, I've heard from municipal lighting2475 plans in my own district that developing and implementing climate programs can be challenging for municipal lighting plans due to their limited staff2483 and resources. So how can the EEA better support the municipal lighting plans on switching to renewable energy and implementing climate programs? [???] We have had a long-standing relationship, a productive one, I will say that we are having discussions of, well, we have had a massive program that is going to be investing in electrification that only serves the2517 investor-owned utilities.2518 So all the2520 customers and the service territories are paying the costs of our cap and trade programs of Reggie, the in-state cap and seeing a portion of the revenue that is raised from these MLPs could be reinvested into those facilities to adopt the air source heat pumps and all of the technologies that we see from our CCP need to be a statewide program. So we are having ongoing discussions with them to be partners in modernizing our heating system, our buildings and renewables at the MLP level.

[CREEM:] Okay. I just have a comment, you mentioned Mass saves, I wish it was a stronger tool for emissions reduction than it is and I hope there will be changes to Mass save, that will make it stronger.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

[SEN BARRETT:] I do want to follow up on the chair's question about the Net-zero stretch code. I'm concerned at the moment about the major issue she raises and a minor issue or two as well. The major issue is that the legislature in writing the Climate Act did not anticipate a massive movement towards new construction that would not involve fossil fuel connections. We anticipated instead experimentation in keeping, I might add with general notions of towns and cities serving as local laboratories of democracy and innovation, something a principle to which I know you're committed.

We also we're mindful of the fact that the private sector values experimentation and even at times fast failures as a way of spurring innovation. We know in general that it's good to get a lot of data in before making broader changes if you can. For all those reasons, we wrote language that permitted communities to2696 have a vigorous local debate involving local democracy before opting in but we imagined that once they made that decision, they would do so knowing that new construction without a backup fossil fuel hookup was an option that they could pursue. It is a reversal, I think of legislative intent to have proposed a municipal opt-in specialised stretch energy code with so-called net-zero building performance standards that don't permit communities to actually experiment with going that zero.

I have been disappointed today, I haven't heard any definition of a net-zero building that you've promulgated at all, except one that seems to be, its exact opposite. You specifically said in your slide presentation that you did not anticipate individual buildings, in fact operating in a Net-zero fashion. That so far as I can tell respectfully is contrary to law. Let's assume that you took practical note of some of the difficulties in drilling Net-zero down to the individual building level and instead, you presumed to meet the spirit of the law by requiring or by permitting communities to opt-in to net-zero community-wide.

Even there, you have neglected to provide a definition of net-zero building performance standards and effectively, a working definition of net-zero itself, instead, you propose as a bar to innovation, as a bar to experimentation and as a bar to data generation to preclude communities even from going there if the community wishes to do so, I would have thought that a careful limited prudent way to experiment with total electrification would be to ensure a local debate before communities opted in to truly trying total electrification. So, what definition of Net-zero is going to strike members of the committee as a common-sense step to adhering to common sense or commonly understood definitions of Net-zero?

What is the definition of net-zero that you're going to promulgate and how are you going to reconcile that with the bar you are interposing to communities actually attempting to go with electrification without fossil fuel backup?

[THEOHARIDES:] I'd like to take the first part of your question; first, which is the idea of stifling innovation and I would2871 argue that dictating certain fuels be used or certain things are banned is not innovation, it's a requirement. What we're doing is creating a code that requires the most energy-efficient building envelope possible as well as additional things that go beyond that, including passive houses, on-site solar and a number of other tenants to try to allow for just that level of experimentation, of adoption of new technologies, including sophisticated heat pumps and on-site storage.

What we are not requiring is that every individual building new in a community2924 needs to offset its entire energy profile. We do not believe that every homeowner needs to be an energy farmer and producer to offset all of the energy that's used and that that job can be efficiently done at the state level by procuring clean energy for electricity and by transitioning away from fossil fuels. Right now, we have a system in terms of our gas systems That is not limited to one town. It is a network-wide system. The decisions that one town make affect ratepayers across the entire system.

We do not think that those decisions should be2964 made lately or that they should limit new people from moving2968 into communities like Lexington and Arlington and Concord which have some of the most expensive housing rates in the country. We think we have to do this with a high level of care when we're transitioning away from a system that still exists2983 all across the state. I2985 would just ask the commissioner if he wants to speak to the definition at all in terms of what's in the proposal.

[WOODCOCK:] Yes, thank you. Senator, you2993 can imagine the first task when this was authored is to look at definitions across the country for what net-zero is and we are certainly open to any feedback as we are early on in the stage. Yet when we look at all of the examples of net-zero prohibitions of fossil fuels is nowhere to be seen3015 in any definition that I've seen for net zero. Secondly, the standard that we did is how can we deploy the most cost effective technologies for new buildings? There will be 27% of our total square footage by 2050.

Ultimately, we commissioned a two year study to look at not only the building technologies across the country, but how do those technologies work within our climate. That is reflected in our straw proposal. How can we meet a new England winter and a new England Summer with these technologies. The other aspect that I would say is when we do the modelling, what is important is that these buildings are prepared to have the most efficient use, the building envelope insulation, windows will utilize any energy source as efficiently as possible that they pre electrified to move forward with electrification and lastly, that we offset any emissions with the required use of fossil fuels with solar.

The definition and the legislative language was subject to interpretation. We did our best effort to put forward a straw proposal and as the legislation requires, will be going forward with six public hearings and certainly do expect it will get input on the net-zero as well as the stretch code proposal.

3112 [THEOHARIDES:] I just want to echo Patrick on that. We do really value as you've seen with the offshore wind discussion we've been having as well as with the workforce discussion, we very much value your opinion and that of the Legislature at large and look forward to all of the thoughtful feedback we will receive on this proposal.

[BARRETT:] Thank you. I do have a number of additional questions but I appreciate the spirit of openness that you're bringing to this. You're going to provide us and this is literally required by law, you're going to provide us with a definition of net-zero buildings, correct?

[THEOHARIDES:] Correct.

[BARRET:] And you're going to provide us with a set of net-zero Building performance standards, is that correct?

[WOODCOCK:] Correct.

[BARRETT:] At the moment, I sense a glaring inconsistency at the heart of your explanations today. You are saying that you're calling giving communities the option to do something an imposition of a requirement,3180 I think that permitting an open local option is the exact opposite of the imposition of a statewide requirement but let's leave that aside. You're3191 also suggesting that you don't want to leave certain consumers paying for infrastructure while certain others would be permitted to walk away from it because they would have totally electric new dwellings and yet you provide for exactly the same thing.

You simply lay out a less efficient way of getting there, you want to create a market system that will lead to exactly the same result. Buildings on their own deciding to construct all-electric dwellings, albeit not by means of a mandate. So, if builders on their own are supposed to conclude from the structure you3233 create that they should go all-electric, that still would leave yet other consumers dealing with financing natural gas infrastructure, would it not?

[THEOHARIDES:] It would. We think the transition would be smoother, but it's one of the reasons we're working quickly through this commission on the, on clean heat and through the docket at the DPU to understand how we ensure that the gas companies make this transition, are part of the transition to electric heat pumps, that that's part of their business model and you're starting to see that in the three-year plan, and that we are able to move away from these assets without stranded assets and without low-income customers paying for the front of the remaining system.

I think one of the things we've done very carefully through the Mass save program is making sure to direct the funding to hit consumers who have had the least access to these programs, low-income environmental justice communities, communities that have been underserved so that they can make this very transition but we believe that this transition3303 will happen more smoothly with the way that we have set up the proposal as we've done.

[BARRETT:] Okay, thank you, madam Secretary, let me ask the following question. I'm concerned about the requirement which I embrace in principle that if you're going to permit new construction with a natural gas hookup or with a propane source, you're going to require solar on-site were feasible but3334 there seems to be slowly but surely emerging a great deal of squishiness about the concept of feasibility. In several comments in your original slide presentation of the net-zero stretch energy code, feasibility would only be limited by the presence of shade making it impossible to put solar on a new construction fueled with fossil sources.

But as the discussion has proceeded, feasibility begins to be a less and less reliable benchmark and I am of course concerned that developers will gain a loosey-goosey definition of feasibility, they will construct new houses and new commercial spaces in such a way as to demonstrate the lack of feasibility of solar on new construction. So are we just talking about the obstructive effects of shade or they're all kinds of other loopholes through which solar could be shown to be unfeasible?

[WOODCOCK:] Well, Senator, that language is taken from the standard that California requires for their new construction and there is a standard for evaluation at the local code level to ensure that there is adherence with this code. At the same time,3434 let's hope that we do have houses that are built under trees. I certainly like houses that have some canopy, but we're really trying to model the work that California has done. There are some instances that I think we can not reinvent a policy, there are some other areas with our climate that is completely departures from where California would be, but I think the solar standard that they have in California is a good model.

[BARRETT:] Okay. I want to talk a little bit about the transportation issues you reference as indeed you might. The draft interim clean energy and climate plan for 2020 was released the last December. I've read with care the transportation section of the CECP for 2030, which is the largest section and the first section after the general discussion. As you, all know, and as you pointed out, emissions from transportation are the biggest single source of our emissions. What strikes me about the interim plan is its tentativeness. The fact that every statement is hedged and that3506 no firm commitments are made with respect and transportation.

The document says, for example, that the administration will explore and I'm quoting a different3520 approach to providing EV rebates, that's on page 22 and the document says, the administration will investigate EV initiatives for low-income consumers, that's also on page 22, it will explore a residential charging programs, that's on page 23. It will propose potential revisions to rate structures, that's on page 23. It will explore new steps and demand response at page3552 23, it will explore ways to raise consumer awareness, that's on page 24 and it will explore options for reducing single occupancy commuting, that's on page 25.

Everything is an exploration, nothing is a commitment given the availability of federal funds. Can we expect a firm commitment to what the Climate Act requires, which is a clear, comprehensive and specific plan for achieving 2025 emission limits and transportation among other sectors?

[THEOHARIDES:] Yes. You know what you are referring to there, Mr. Chair is the draft plan, which did have a number of policies that needed further exploration to be developed. Well, I say that our final plan will not have similar explorations and studies and policy development contained within, it absolutely will, it will also have clear numbers and a pathway to the emission targets we need to achieve, I think you'll see the balance. Just to give you a sense of the ongoing work; there has been 38 million spent through more EVs, there has been $10 million now in initial funding to the EV truck program, which we're very excited about.

DPU has approved 65 million3646 in electric vehicle infrastructure. In filings from the utilities, we have 468 million and make ready infrastructure in the workplaces, 28 million from the VW Settlement. We have joined Massachusetts committed to the advanced clean cars rule for 100% zero-emissions vehicle sales by 2035, which was directly pledged in the draft plan and will again be there in the finalized plan. We've joined 14 other states NBC with the joint MOU that was announced in July of 2020 that sets at least 30 zero-emission vehicle sales by 2030 and 100% by 2050.

Again, as I mentioned, significant funds coming in from the bipartisan infrastructure law will make available to us many of the spending programs that we were set to incorporate with transportation Climate initiative dollars. But yes, you will absolutely see a more concrete plan moving forward.

[BARRETT:] Thank you, Madam Secretary, I appreciate that. Tell me if I'm wrong, I recall that in one letter that Governor Baker signed with other governors, there was a request made specifically to President Biden that he banned sales of internal combustion engine cars beginning with the year model year 2035. Is that a commitment to which you are wedded?

[THEOHARIDES:] So the commitment for the state of Massachusetts that we will ban sales of internal combustion engines by 2035 is a commitment to which we are wedded. I cannot remember whether or not we signed a letter to that effect to the president, but I could ask my team who's on if we did if you want to.

[BARRETT:] No, no, that's alright, I'm sure you did, but thank you. Let me go on and ask one more question about the clean energy and climate plans transportation section. I was struck by the lack of evidence of interdepartmental collaboration in putting together that3769 interim document, I have heard reassuring things today that interdepartmental collaboration is improving and I want to thank you Madam Secretary and the Under Secretary for that. There was no mention of interdepartmental cooperation whatsoever in the draft3784 plan.3785

In fact, I was struck and depressed when I read, by the fact that the term Mass transit did not appear once anywhere in the document. What is the challenge to getting different departments to cooperate with EEA? They must be considerable. I've noticed that there is no climate cabinet that's ever been announced from Massachusetts, kind of a subgroup of cabinet secretaries who agreed to really focus on reducing emissions within their respective sectors. I say, I was struck by the subtext to the interim plan, which was that you hadn't managed to engage3828 Mass dot at all.

The Transportation Secretary was not thanked in the preface and in the introduction and the words, as I3839 say, Mass Transit never appeared? Why has it been so difficult to get cabinet-level3845 secretary offices involved at least as of the writing of the document?

[THEOHARIDES:] Well, look, I think that Governor Baker's cabinet works very closely together on any number of issues, particularly including things like climate change that cross multiple sectors and in fact, his executive order back in 2016 laid out a whole of government approach to climate change, which interestingly enough, the Biden administration is also taking on. I think I would3874 put our approach to climate change and collaboration across disciplines up against any other state.

Yes, there are times when our different missions and different staff and different silos prevent us from working as closely together as we might, but I don't think that has been the case here. In fact, one of Secretary Pollock's last tasks, before she left for DC, was reviewing and going through3899 the 2020 draft TECP. We have worked harder to collaborate with our colleagues at Mass dot particularly with a new team member coming on our side who is coordinating transportation policies and sits under secretary Chang.

We are also hiring up under the climate law and often this is a case of having enough people to have the ongoing conversations to explore policy ideas and to coordinate, but that's a key piece of the work going forward. We've coordinated with our colleagues at Mass dot very closely around the transportation and climate initiatives and so we're aligned on where that funding would go and that's providing us with a roadmap for how we would spend the dollars under the bipartisan infrastructure law to have the most impact both from improving transportation access and equity ability for the commonwealth but also reducing emissions and improving resiliency while we do it.

The Governor has started the process of creating a group at administration and finance that is overseeing all of the expenditures under ARPA and under the bipartisan infrastructure, law to ensure that there is this level of coordination so that we're achieving goals cabinet wide, not just the goals of transportation or EEA, cabinet wide goals like climate change.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

[BARRETT:] Let me just approach this one remaining topic. I'm with you, Madam Chair though, this really will be the last one. First of all, I want to thank the secretary for her answer and I want to encourage you all to continue that interdepartmental thing. In the Climate Act, we require that there'll be net-zero by 2050 with 85% of the emissions hitting the 1990 benchmark, leaving 15% of the emissions kind of unspoken for, and I agree. It has been widely perceived that the remaining 15% of those emissions would be absorbed through the sequestration available to us through the natural and working lands of Massachusetts.

I have heard the 15% figure repeated constantly by well, continuously by environmental groups in particular. You and I have had a discussion about whether that may be a widely shared misperception,4071 that there's been a recalculation of the likely sequestration potential of instate natural and working lands and the true number is about half of what has been widely presumed to be the case. Could you talk about that recalibration you've done that I know involves some data that became available to you recently and why it is probably unlikely that 15% of total emissions can be absorbed by Massachusetts natural and working lands?

[THEOHARIDES:] I do believe that our analysis has shown the number might be less than 15% and that to get to the full sequestration potential that we have in Massachusetts, there's significant work to do on the land conservation side, on the forest management side, on the way we manage and harvest timber and how we lock up those carbon molecules as embodied carbon in furniture4135 and other long-lived materials. So we are flushing that out as we finalize the4142 plan, we will have a robust chapter on the sequestration opportunities through our natural and working4151 lands.

But here's the important thing, Senator, which is that if we do find that are natural and working lands have less ability to absorb and sequester carbon than we thought, then our plan will require us to mitigate more of the carbon through our energy, transportation and building sectors. So it's not that we just forget about the other 7% should that be the case, it's just we will have to find other ways to get those emissions out of our system.

[BARRETT:] Fair enough.4184 Notes were taken by my staff at the time that we had that conversation, which was in December and at that time, you said that most likely we will require out of state resources to sequester up to 50%. At another point, you said we may be better served to do a lot more emissions reduction and less sequestration. So it's not so much that, that we simply need to take note of what our natural and working lands can do more likely than not even after we take note of what they can do with enhanced lumber policy and enhanced open land space protection policy. It is likely that we're going to find that we've overestimated the sequestration potential of Massachusetts working lands. Am I right about4234 that?

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

[THEOHARIDES:] So what I would say is this; the 15%, was always an estimate in the original plan, the idea is to get much more specific about what we think we can hit, how much it will cost and how much it will cost to mitigate instead and to make the best4264 choice about the best and most feasible pathway for Massachusetts.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

[SEN PACHECO:] Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's interesting as we talk about these issues and the plan that was put forward I thank you for that Madam Secretary and I look forward to getting a copy of the proposal you went over with us today. It's interesting thinking about where we are going when, unfortunately, I know that we don't know where we are in terms of 2020 numbers. I know that you are working, Madam Secretary along with Commissioner Suuberg and others4344 to try to get us that data but as soon as that's available, I would love to know Whether we actually hit the 2020 targets of 25% below the 1990 levels or not.

[THEOHARIDES:] Senator, I have some good news on that front; not that we have the absolute final data on this because as you know very well the inventory we compile relies both on the EIA, the Energy Information Administration and then to a lesser extent on the EPA and anyone who has listened to one of these hearings knows it comes in two years after the fact and there are often revisions to previously provided data that require DEP to go back and revisit the numbers and for all of them who are here on the phone, this is painful for them.

But in 2021, we had two significant updates of previously provided data which4407 affect our inventory and we expect more of these types of after the fact revisions to come out from the federal agencies this year. So I'm giving you all my disclaimers,4420 Senator before I give you the numbers but when these revisions are issued, we will update the inventory, we will let the stakeholders know of any of these changes. We have written to EIA asking if they will accelerate the release of the data given the interest in 2020 and us having a statutory target for 2020.

I did ask the team at DEP led by Commissioner Suuberg to estimate emissions for 2020 given the level of concern and interest and I think we're all nervous about providing4470 an estimate because it's not something we've done before but they put a significant amount of work into it. DEP estimates that given the significant and extraordinary events in 2020 as well as our climate policies that were underway, it would put us at 28.6% below 1990 emission levels for 2020. So that would be well beyond the 25% reduction.

I know you agree this is not necessarily a cause for celebration, 2020 was an abnormal year by any stretch of the imagination but we did also see the numbers ticking down in 2019. So we do believe that the climate policies, we've been implementing, the energy changes we've been making are having a significant effect. There is more work to be done but we are very confident that we will hit our 2020 emissions targets. As soon as we uh, as soon as we have those levels verified and finalized, we will get back to you with a final answer but we did want to provide the committee with that initial estimate that we are well below the limit for 2020.

[PACHECO:] That's great. Does that factor in the estimate was done? Does it factor in 2020, the year that we had?

[THEOHARIDES:] It does, to the extent that it factors in transportation emissions, keeping4560 emissions and energy.

[PACHECO:] You know, keeping emissions up to where they were say in 2019 and not allowing those emissions reductions that took place as a result of plus traffic on the road.

[THEOHARIDES:] No, the estimate includes the fact that there was less traffic on the road. I don't know if Commissioner Suuberg or Christine Kirby want to speak to any of this?

[PACHECO:] But it might be interesting to take one of those emissions back in, you know? If it was a normal year, what would the estimate be?

[SUUBERG:] Senator, I appreciate the question and as the Secretary indicated, we're extremely nervous about doing an estimate like this, we've really never done it before. I also understand the frustration of people that sometimes information is coming more than two years after the fact. In fact, for us to finalize 2019, there's still three data points of the 21 or 22 different sectors of the economy that we get reports from still coming in, but the estimate we did includes the big impact of reduced traffic in 2020. That year, we saw a significant reduction in VMTs based on what we're seeing, and then the other factor was the number of heating and cooling days was4656 down.

Those were probably the two biggest contributors. Not surprisingly, nationally, we saw the same sorts of trends, people were talking about this a year ago expecting that national emissions would be significantly down and expecting that they would start to climb again in 21 as more normal economic activity is underway.4674 This estimate is based on what we've seen from the actual 2020 data we have available and extrapolating from that, and that's as far as we've gotten.

[PACHECO:] Great, thank you very much, Commissioner, you know, how long I've been wanting to get these numbers in. Thank you, Madam Secretary for your patience with me on that, I think it's just important to try to get some kind of an estimate out there so we can plan basically from where we are looking forward. A couple of other quick questions I have, goes back to the decarbonization plans that were put forth that some of my colleagues asked about earlier, I just want to stay on that4733 point for a second; the plans put forth by DPU and surprisingly by DOER that are so permissive to fossil fuel heat by allowing old gas to be replaced essentially by new gas instead of other clean energy options.

I want to have it explained to me again how this is consistent with trying to get to a net-zero and getting the decarbonization numbers down to where we need to be when, you know if I have a heating system that is, you know, old and needs to be replaced and I have options in terms of clean energy options like ground source heat pumps, etcetera. And why wouldn't we help subsidize that option in terms of going to the electrification rather than hoping to subsidize a fossil fuel option, that's going to be around after that subsidization for another 25 years or so? I think if you study the life cycle costs of that decision, it is actually a poor decision on our part, given the requirement that we're trying to get to.

[THEOHARIDES:] I'll start quickly and turn it over to Commissioner Woodcock. I4827 just want to say that the team of the Department of Energy4834 Resources worked on a plan for the three-year energy efficiency plan with the providers and with the stakeholders that I believe represents a sea change in how these plans have been developed and what they've covered and the ability to really be used for electrification, but also importantly for what the legislature required of us in the Climate Act to finally steer these plans toward a mission reduction which was something I asked when I came in, why aren't these plans focused on emission reductions? Why is it just cost and energy efficiency? So I believe this really is a sea change. I believe it's a transition period but I do want to let the Commissioner speak more in-depth to the thought behind this plan.

[WOODCOCK:] Well, thank you Senator and I do think a lot of that work was with the Secretary's letter that was a culmination of implementation of the Climate Act that made some significant change but Senator, let's be clear on the facts, there are options now. So you mentioned why aren't their ground source heat pumps for the first time? There are incentives for ground4921 source heat pumps, so we are having a ground change that's actually occurring with this plan. I think what you're really getting at is why are their incentives for fossil fuel in a situation where we need over this4934 decade, as much electrification as possible.

It's predicated on what is, and I think Senator Barrett and everybody who worked on this know that the Climate Act made modifications, the fundamental mental assessment of what4964 is cost-effective, but it did it built on4967 the foundation of a paradigm of looking at that a lot of customers are currently putting in the natural gas system, currently putting in propane system and there are efficiency levels that are different within that customer choice. If a customer elects to move forward with the least efficient system, would it make sense that the nomenclature would be to intervene and have an incentive to push consumers to the more efficient discern?

Now, under the department's assessment of this current statutory5008 requirement to pursue all cost-effective, it was determined that there are some still fossil fuel measures that are cost-effective. I think there is more work5020 to be done reflecting on the department to order, I think we need to look at the statutory structure that's governing Mass save and ensure that there is complete alignment5030 with promoting a clean modern energy future. I think we made5036 a lot5038 of progress5040 with this plan but I think we've had discussions with the chairs of the TUE committee,5044 there definitely is more work to be done to ensure that limited ratepayer dollars are used to target only the measures that we think are consistent with our climate requirements. I don't know if that's helpful, if it is it does get a little granular?

[PACHECO:] Well it's helpful and we can talk more offline about it but with the limited time I have I just have one more general question about transportation and this goes all the way back to when Secretary Biden was here actually, you know, that's quite some time ago and I've been asking the question periodically about leading by example, options and why we're not doing more in this regard. I'm talking about our own fleet of vehicles across agencies and looking at working with other states in the Northeast, why haven't we yet after years now of talking about this as a model, has it even been studied?

We could create5120 a market here in the Northeast recycling out the vehicles, creating a market for EVs and clean energy vehicles and working with other states, counties and local governments to put together procurement packages, where you will cycle out these vehicles every year, why haven't we done that?

And that's, that will be the last question because I know that secretary, I promised her she, she's would be able to leave around 1 30. So you've got to three minutes to answer that question and thank you very much. Secretary theater your time today. Well, thank you, Madam, Chair for, uh, for the hearing on this topic and for all of your attention and good questions,

[THEOHARIDES:] Senator Pacheco, this is obviously an interesting idea that we've discussed. I think there could be opportunities for joint procurement. As we've seen working with other states can sometimes be difficult and so I do think this is something that we may explore and be interested in, particularly with funds from the bipartisan infrastructure law. It is5198 not something that even sort of had fulsome discussions through TCI while we had that body of 12 states talking, I think just because there are so many individual decisions and things of that nature that go into purchasing fleet. I will say and I'll turn this one to Patrick as well that leading by example, update EO, that Governor Baker signed last Earth day, we have made significant commitments to our fleets in terms of when they transition, is it 2030?

[WOODCOCK:] That's right. Depending on the type of vehicle,5234 their requirements are to be zero-emission.

[PACHECO:] I just want to clarify; I'm not talking about all the states getting involved, that we were involved with TCI etcetera but I'm5247 just saying even if it was just our state, we don't seem to have put forth that leading by example plan, we were working with a top-down approach right from the state, county and local governments putting them all into the option for them to join a bid, you know, to recycle out fleets.

[WOODCOCK:] I will say, Senator, I think it's a good idea to the extent we are, we are trying to shift our green communities program to start looking at whether that's police vehicles to look at zero-emission vehicles. Also, one area that I think there is a huge opportunity for is the Biden administration is the guidance they issued for EV charging infrastructure, which really encourages regionalism in the development of charging infrastructure that is interoperable across the nation, but also reflective of regional daily commutes.

I do think there's an opportunity to start contemplating a shared EV charging plan across the Northeast that I think gets to your point about more shared economies of scale if you get shared programs. So I do appreciate your longstanding effort to try to promote some cross-governmental procurement for the clean energy transition.

5343

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

[PACHECO:] Final point and I'll conclude is on the TCI; please continue to look at TCI because it was DC in Massachusetts, we could be doing it with the west and we go back, is there any way that TCI can remain5441 in some form? I think that there is an opportunity to do that.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE

[THEOHARIDES:] What I would say is the policies we developed under TCI and the model rule and the MOU and all of the rest are states of the art, they are ready to go, they are good, deeply vetted policies and when we have a group of states in the region with a strong market to bring forward, I think these policies could be taken right off the shelf and implemented and I think we'll need something like this after.

Thank you.

SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE