2023-06-14 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
2023-06-14 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
(Part 2 of 2)
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - We'll call this340 here in order. If you wanna welcome all of you here, and I know there are a number of individuals joining us remotely as well. For the record, I'm state senator Mike Barrett senate chair of TUE, and I know Senator Paul Mark, a member of this committee is with us remotely. If there are other legislators
members of the committee who are participating remotely, I hope they will identify themselves by texting me or otherwise so that we can introduce them as well.
Before we begin, I want to acknowledge, and I wanna thank all of you for
accommodating the new challenging schedule of dual and independent hearings that we wanna hear from you as to whether doing both the house and the senate hearing on the same day is better than doing it on well, different days.
It creates a longer day for those of you who are408 taking part410 in both events Maybe that's412 too much. Maybe we are better off
having a these Senate House proceedings on different days. Perhaps you could give us some input at the conclusion of today's event as to which which you would prefer. I have heard from a number of folks who typically testify at these events, at these hearing that they would like more advanced notice as to when the senate proceedings are occurring, and we can accommodate that. So we will be sending out hearing schedules further into the future so that you can schedule your time accordingly
In general, again, I want to thank you for bearing with us during these rather extraordinary times, these this choice to have 2 proceedings rather than 1. Presumably, it won't be forever. Presumably, decision making will return to T. E. E. and with that joint hearings, we can't have 1 without the other, but my hope is that we'll start to abide by our traditional rules, and we will once again give equal weight to senate cision making, not excessive weight, but equal weight. And in so doing, be able to bring the 2 halves of the hearing process back together as well.
but probably that resolution will not be coming this year. And so, we have to resign ourselves to the dual hearing process instead and to make it as bearable for all of us as possible. 1 good thing, it's worth emphasizing the good news. is that everyone gets 2 bites out of the apple.
I was raised to believe that 2 bites were better than 1. And so somebody said to me the other day that that an unexpected positive side to the current arrangement is that535 there's 1 rehearsal and 1 and539 1 delivery of a more polished performance the second time around. Sometimes the second time around will be senate. Sometimes it will be house. But in any event, we'll test the proposition as to whether practice makes perfect. With that, I556 want to begin today's hearing, we're going to begin with h30139
564 and564 Our first signed up witness is Bina.
Hamayaraj. from the Sierra Club?
SPEAKER2 - -Good options.
SPEAKER1 - - Help me with the pronunciation being of your last night if I've done a poor job of it.
SPEAKER2 - It's hard my ass. tariff Maraj.
SPEAKER1 - Ah, excellent. Thank you. Thank you.
VEENA DHARMARAJ - MASSACHUSETTS SIERRA CLUB - HB 3139 - HB 3145 - SB 2099 - Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee that are joining us online. My name is Veena Dharmaraj and I am the director of transportation at the Massachusetts Sierra Club. I'm a member of the zero emission vehicles coalition. I'm testifying today in support of H 3139 that requires all public school bus fleets to be electric by 2035 and prioritizes electrification of vehicles serving environmental justice populations. I would want to thank Chair Barrett as well as the rest of the members of the TUE for all the progress that we made in the last session on transportation electrification Bills, it's a great start, but we definitely feel that more needs to be done when you're talking about the 2025 and 2030 clean energy and climate plan. We know it requires Massachusetts requires to reduce transportation emissions by 34% by 2030 and the CCP identifies electrification of669 our public as well as our671 private fleets as one of those strategies to decarbonize their transportation system and improve air quality, particularly in communities that are most impacted by air pollution.
The good news is that there are suitable electric vehicle models that are available today, both in the light duty as well as the heavy duty vehicle segments and these offerings are continuing to grow year on year. But despite all of these technological improvements and the lower life cycle and maintenance costs of zero emission vehicles, we still see that it constitutes a very small percentage of Massachusetts public fleets. So the slow speed of fleets turnover as well as the closing window for urgent climate action makes it really important that vehicles that have reached the end of life are replaced by electric versions today. The Commonwealth's timely adoption of both the ACC2 as well as the advanced clean track rules will support this transition by increasing the supply of electric vehicles locally and as well as lowering upfront costs. The federal as well as 100,000,000 in state funding that's available through the economic development Bill will lay the groundwork for expansion of charging infrastructure, and I know a lot of work is happening on that as a part of the evict procedure as well. It will also help with the procurement of electric cars, buses, and truck in the state.
760 So760 by passing H 3139, the762 Commonwealth can demonstrate its commitment to decarbonizing its own vehicle fleets first. and and it will also serve as a model for private fleets to follow. I also772 wanted to express Sierra Club's support774 for bills H 3145 and S 2099. H 3145 would establish an e-bike grant initiative to help finance bikeshare and ownership programs by municipalities, businesses, as well as nonprofits, and enabling more trips to be made by bikes would reduce traffic congestion, it'll lower emissions, and most importantly, encourage mode shift. E-bikes will make it easier for people who want to commute longer distances and more challenging terrain. Finally, S 2099 would establish a program to offset the higher up front cost of electric school buses. State and federal funding that we have currently have been insufficient to meet the demand for school districts in Massachusetts. In 2022, only five of the 47 Massachusetts school districts that applied for EPA clean school bus funding received funding, that's just 76 of the close to 300 electric school buses that were requested through this grant program. S 2099 would help bridge that gap. I thank you for this opportunity to comment on these Bills, and I urge you to report them out of committee. I'm849 happy to answer any questions, and we will be851 submitting more detailed written testimony as well. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, thank you very much.
I do have some questions but appreciate your your testimony.
SEN BARRETT - So first of all, with respect to H 3139 which, is the act that would set deadlines to electrify school buses, obviously, public fleets and establish programs884 to encourage private fleet electrification. As you know, and I know you're an expert in this area, it's been said, and I'm interested to hear whether the numbers896 have changed, but it's been said898 by public authorities and private experts alike, that the cost of a given electric school bus is 3X typically compared to a diesel school bus. So one of the things we wrestled with when we passed the 2022 drive act, which required electrification for the MBTA, as you know, they're now under a mandate in that law to stop buying diesel buses by a date certain or leasing them 2030, I think, is the date. The reason we stopped short of mandating the same for other regional transportation agencies and for school districts is because of the unfunded mandate problem. I think942 in your testament, I heard you say that944 that the recent infusion of federal law is well welcome hasn't been sufficient yet to deal with the mandated issue. So, it seems like we're all punting if we simply require the executive branch to come up with a plan to address the revenue gap.
One might imagine our requiring a study about how to address the revenue gap to make sure that local school districts aren't saddled with extraordinary costs as opposed to ordinary981 ones but to pass a law saying, not that there should be a study of what our options might be, but that unspecified solution to the problems shall be required of the executive branch. I mean, the two problems I see with that is that that's one a legislative prerogative, not an executive branch, prerogative to pass incentive programs, and I wouldn't want to see the legislature surrender its responsibility to the executive but then the other piece is of course that it seems like we should not mandate anything until we have the solution in1022 hand for the local school districts. One wouldn't want to pass a law that said, go out and find a solution, we haven't the foggiest idea what it is, but you shall do the conversion by date certain. Although I know it's hard, wouldn't you want to propose a specific funding source and then with that solution in hand set a timeline for conversion? Why punt on the solution, but mandate the activity anyway?
DHARMARAJ - I definitely see the solution as being there, and the solution is that we have a1062 technology that works. There are school districts as I mentioned in my testimony that are in the wait list to get electric buses. I absolutely agree that electric buses have a higher up front cost than fossil fuel vehicles and we definitely need to come to an understanding of where the funding is going to come from. But I think the funding question is something that you would see is a constant across not only the conversation that we're having about school buses, but also, you know, related to our transit, also related to all the other infrastructure related to electric vehicle adoption. So it's a conversation that, in my view, need to happen with the legislature, with the executive branch, to figure out what the possible revenue models could be to raise that funding. I think the timeline for climate action especially given our public fleets have got very predictable routes that they run, whether it's a school bus or whether it's vehicles that our municipal fleets are using, they all run on very predictable time lines and routes, and it becomes easier to find a solution to electrify that more effectively today before asking private fleets to do the same. I think the Commonwealth can lead on this matter by starting electrifying public leads first.
BARRETT - But the Barber Bill H 3139 doesn't provide a solution or an answer to the funding question?
DHARMARAJ - Yes, it doesn't identify a funding source, that we definitely understand would require more conversations with the legislature, with the executive branch, and all other departments that are responsible.
BARRETT - Thank you. I'm only pressing the point because I see it as such a major problem, it's either an unfunded mandate or isn't. If we're going to create the mandate but not fund it, that creates all kinds of economic and social equity problems because poor school districts are going to be at a significant disadvantage. I would encourage advocates to come up with a proposal for the money, a specific proposal for the money. Again, not one that the legislature is going to forfeit to the executive branch because that's kind of a no no.
DHARMARAJ - I definitely want to add a little bit to about what other states have done. So talking about the school bus initiative, you know, even while there's lot of federal funding available through the EPA program, states like California, New York, Colorado, they've all allocated, they've created a fund for their states to able to be able to electrify school buses. So, New York has $1,800,000,000 that it has allocated. New York has $500,000,000, Colorado has closed to $45,000,000 that they have put aside for this. So I definitely, again, I understand that it is currently in the Bill an unfunded mandate, but, you know,1269 like, in the 2022 climate Bill where we had some funding, while it1277 identified the need for the electric vehicle infrastructure quality and council, and the need to expand charging infrastructure, and through the economic development Bill, there was some money that was allocated both EV charging infrastructure as well as for electric vehicle incentives, and we appreciate that funding that was allocated, and hope to have more conversations with you and others. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
That that's fair. And by the way, I wanna introduce Senator Pacheco who's with us remotely together with Senator Mark listening in Kentley as senator Pacheco is, I can tell and I appreciate his being1313 here.
BARRETT - Another question. Section 3, as you know, in the 2022 Drive Act, we indicated that there would be more internal combustion engine car sales beginning in 2035, the same standard as is observed by New York And California. Your Section 3 departs from a focus on fleets and school buses and instead somewhat out of context would set altogether new deadlines for sale of fossil fuel free motor vehicles in Massachusetts. No reference to buses, no reference to fleets, public, or private. As I understand, Section 3 instead, it would amend last year's statute and instead of requiring an end to ICB sales by 2035, would set a series of staggered deadlines culminating in 2026 as a ban so far as I can tell on all new ICE motor vehicle sales. 2026, so far as I can tell is as well, it's three years from now, actually, it's 2.5 years from now, 100% of all vehicle sales will have to be EVs.
DHARMARAJ - I think what you're referring to Senator, if I remember correctly, is the requirement for all new bagel procurements, they're too staggered interim time lines, one is for 100% fleet electrification, and the other piece is
BARRETT - You're right, I apologize to you, I misread this and I apologize. You're talking about EVs purchased by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?
DHARMARAJ - Yes. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
My mistake, thank you. Can I ask you one more question about a different Bill, it's the Senate Bill on the docket here, and then we're going1443 to hear from Senator Creem who's patience I appreciate, but I just want to ask a question about 2099, which is actually a bill filed by Senator Creem.
Is this thea? And I and I apologize to you for
Well, actually with Senator cream testifying, I'm going to, I'm going to defer my questions until Senator cream is available. She's the expert on this stuff. Well, I wanna thank you very much for testifying, and and
BARRETT - I want to reiterate my request that you help us identify a funding source for school buses and for public fleets. It could be, and I'm just supposing, it could be an increase in the gasoline tax, it could be carbon pricing,1499 carbon price and transportation, an idea that I've personally espoused for the entire 10 years I've been here in the Senate this time around. So, there are solutions out there, it's dicey to name them, it's worse to dodge the question in my humble view.
DHARMARAJ - Sure. The intention is not to dodge the question but definitely on and there are a number of options available, right, from you mentioned carbon pricing, you know, there's the fair amendment and I think all these conversations would need a bunch of people to come together to kind of figure out what the right mechanism would be. So I don't want to jump into a specific preference but I do understand that a source for financing, school bus procurement needs to be identified. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much. Thanks for appearing.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you.
We're we're very pleased to welcome Senator Creme. Senator Pachico, Senator Mark Card listening to you, Senator Creme.
I see Senator Pachico -- Remotely.
I saw him in the last virtual. So he's been busy virtually all morning. Yes. Exactly. Okay. I'm not sure I have all your answers, but I'll give you my testimony. How's that? Alright. So this is sort of a good follow through.
SEN CREEM - SB 2099 - So the first Bill I want to talk about is Senate 2099, which I heard you mentioned before, creating an1590 act to promote access to zero emission school buses. I know, Mr. Chairman, that this is something you were interested in as well as we did work on the conference committee, and I know you are an advocate of clean school buses,1605 but electrifying school bus fleets sharply reduces greenhouse gas1610 emissions and ensures that1612 children breathe clean air since electric school buses do not spew the harmful pollution1617 as diesel powered school buses. Many school districts are interested in1623 transitioning to electric school buses but the cost can be challenging.
We've had some small grant programs, some of my communities have taken advantage of it but electric school buses still cost two to three times1637 as much as diesel fuel buses. Due to lower maintenance and fuel expenses, they are caused competitive with diesel buses over a long time of ownership. Despite the high cost, the1649 growing momentum behind school buses is electrification. In 2022, five Massachusetts School Districts received federal funding for 75 electric school bus and associating charging infrastructure, a second round of federal funding is underway. Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center has dedicated $18,300,000 to programs that help school districts procure electric school buses or plan for school bus electrification. As terrific as these programs they are, they only reach a small number of school districts and to ensure that every school district can electrify their school bus, the state needs to make more resources available.
Senate 2099, will create a grant program administered by DOER and Mass CEC to offset the cost differential between purchasing are contracting zero emission school buses. Grants would cover the cost of charging infrastructure. The grant program would prioritize school districts where the household income is below the Commonwealth's median, or where childhood asthma rate are above the Commonwealth's medium. Many states have already programs like this; California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey have fund school bus electrification and New York has mandated all of them by 2027. 2099 would direct operational services division to create a statewide contract so school districts could purchase at least zero emission school buses. So one of the problems is, the question is how do you deal with the contractors? I know they're all issues, but I want to emphasize the importance of the electric school buses.
The second Bill was 2098, which is an act relative to the purchase of zero emission vehicles in green community. The green communities act requires municipalities to adopt policies in order to qualify as green communities, and there they receive the benefits associated with that. One of the policies is a commitment to purchasing fuel efficient vehicles for the municipality's fleet. When the Green Communities Act was passed in 2008, this requirement made sense. Incentivizing the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles allow us to reduce the emissions from municipal fleets. Now 15 years later, we're in a different spot, these are available, and their prices have come down significantly. Federal and state incentives are and all levels of government are investing in charging infrastructure. The Commonwealth can recognize that we have to electrify every vehicle as soon as we can. So, in this new environment, you can no longer call yourself a green community if you aren't making an effort. to purchase a zero emission vehicle.
This would amend the green communities act so that qualifying municipalities would have to commit to purchasing only zero emission vehicles whenever they are commercially available, it's a hierarchy of priorities. First, green communities would seek a purchase of zero fuel, if it wasn't feasible, the second, they'd seek to purchase a fuel efficient vehicle. It's kind of a common sense thing. Senate 2098 incentivize communities that are already committing to addressing climate change to step up their efforts. It provides reasonable flexibility because it only applies when the zero emission vehicles are commercially available and practical. But1871 nonetheless, it helps speed the electrification of municipal fleets. I know your heart is1877 with minus, but I call your attention to these two Bills and maybe we'll have another conference committee that we can both serve on in this session and look to put those in. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much, senator. And by the way, I want to compliment you for your the role you played yesterday and the rollout of the Community Grain Bank. Dewer, you gave a very strong statement. You represented the legislature.
I quoted you.
I -- You did vote me, which I thought was internally. I acknowledge your presence. No. I think it's very exciting, and my climate1913 committee is gonna have a hearing on on that. And I think it's an exciting thing. And right now, the government is off and running, and I'm happy to be following.
I have a couple of questions for you, but I but I -- I don't know if I have a couple of answers, but I can drop.
You will, either now or later. Maybe later.
The
BARRETT - There is this question I referenced it earlier of the affordability gap. As I look out at the landscape, I see that the need to identify a funding source as being of paramount importance because I can't readily figure out how we're going to do this otherwise. So while I can appreciate that it's not mentioned in Senate 2099, or for that matter, S 2098, that question is so important that I think we have to bite the bullet and kind of go there and figure out how we're going to avoid this being an unfunded mandate to poor school districts in particular could never bridge. Any thoughts now as to how we do this? I'm a little disappointed that the feds provide for effectively competitive grant funding of a tiny number of the school buses that would be needed in any given jurisdiction in the United States. So while that's still helpful in Massachusetts where we've already had pilots and where there are electric school buses rolling today and where we are learning lessons about their early operation, we don't need more pilots, we kind of got them, there have been reports written up, Concord, Somerville and Amherst took part in an early pilot four years ago, and there's a good report on all the challenges involving charging stations and everything else, keeping the buses for after school athletic programs, keeping them on the road in other words, on a single charge. All that research for the most part has been done. So if we've learned the lessons to be had from pilots, true execution of a broad based program is the2049 next step, and for that we2053 need money.
CREEM - I couldn't agree with you, more, and I know that Senator Pacheco has been, I mean this in good faith, railing for more funds for climate for some time. I guess I can also talk from my own personal experience how I realized it's so expensive to be able to do the right thing and get a zero emission vehicle or get way to bring gas initiatives. I don't know how we deal with poor communities. I know myself when I switched to a heat pump, I couldn't believe how much it costs. I know that I'm hoping to get an an electric vehicle, and I had an electrician in my house this morning tell me what it would cost to put the charging, and they're talking about $2000 and that's like an expense with a young family, you might not want to do. So we do need to do something in communities, for instance, school buses, communities that are struggling with the funding for school, and they use their own funding, and they're not getting that much from the state. Are they going to do that? I couldn't agree more. You know, maybe some of the money under the millionaires tax for transportation, maybe there's some bundle there that that2138 transportation, not for all use for climate, but certainly school buses, maybe that is something we can target under the funds that we got for the millionaires tax. I know that you've talked about, like, a not a I hate to say tax, but something on carbon.
BARRETT - A carbon fee, revenue.
CREEM - Okay, and I have been reading up about that as well. I can't agree more that whether we do the carbon fee or we find a method, we can't rely on the feds, we can't rely on communities to spend all the money for their buses, and we're now struggling and fighting for the funds that we have. So I'm all for any one of those, and I wasn't, but I think we should be looking at some form of carbon fee that we weren't looking at before, so I do agree.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I brought my wallet, but I didn't go to the bank2200 this morning. But yesterday, I only got $2000 charge waiting for it. I wanna I wanna yield the senate Chico and Senator Mark in case they have questions, but I do have 1 more question of of you myself. Yep.
BARRETT - One of the lessons we've learned as we've dug into the electrification school bus2215 issue, which our committee has been thinking about for three or four years now, is the very high percentage of leases, 50% and more of all the school buses used in Massachusetts are not owned by public entities. So you're now talking about private companies and so where would the grant go in the case of a private company that would own the bus and by the way we did incentivize private fleet. So in other words, the $3500 to buy an an EV in the 2022 drive act is available to owners of private fleets and public fleets, but how do we route the money?
CREEM - Yes. So in Senate 2099, we direct the Operational Services division to create a statewide contract through which school districts could purchase at least the zero emission school buses. So if it was a bulk contract, it would be possible to say that we would only contract, at least, to prove companies that had a zero emissions school bus. So that might be a way of pushing the cost to the companies, but that would be a way of saying we're doing bulk contracts or passing something that municipalities could only contract with a contractor that had zero emission school buses. So that is a possibility if you did it through the contract that doesn't cover the purchase but it contemplates what you were talking2319 about. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, senator. I I wanna yield to other senators taking part in this hearing. just and to ask whether they have any questions of Senator Cream?
Yes. I do. Yes, miss Chairman. Can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Loud and clear.
Okay.
SEN PACHECO - Thank you very much. Just wanted to say that we also have legislation2342 filed this session having Mass DEP set up an EV procurement pool to buy in bulk for transportation in general. One of the things we should be doing, and I've advocated with the previous administrations that's how far back this has gone now, a few administrations ago to actually look at the Reggie communities in the Northeast, and see if we could work with them to put together a procurement pull to bring down pricing with the manufacturers out there, but to bid in to a regional2394 bid. I think we have a responsibility to try to drive those prices down with the significant market share that we can bring to the table to bring down costs. I have mentioned this to chief Hoffer, and I think she's looking at it and I hope that the Healey Administration will take us up on that and we have a bill that will address that. Unfortunately, but it is in a different committee, it's before this committee on state administration and regulatory oversight, but I'll be talking to the Chairs on that. It's Senate 2056, an act to ensure transportation sector cost2441 savings through joint procurement.2443 So that's one strategy, Mr. Chairman. The other is before the committee, it's House 3859, I cosponsored the Bill along with the chief sponsor Representative Decker, and it is an act relative to fuel standards. I got a separate Bill on fuel standards that I filed years ago because one of the things we really need to do is start tracking the fuel standards in the Commonwealth and try to make sure that we move forward2479 quickly to try to reduce the carbon emissions in existing fuels that are being utilized, and when you look at this, the way this is structured, it creates an incentive for these wholesalers that are doing business in the Commonwealth, Mr. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Chairman.
Jim.
Thank thank you, senator. Do you do you happen to have a question of senator Creme?
SPEAKER3 - Yes. That, you know, not a question
SPEAKER1 - -- We lost them, by the way. --
SPEAKER3 - for her --2512 Yeah. --
PACHECO - I just wanted to thank her for her testimony in that there's another way to try to get the cost in sync here, and that's pulling all of those elements together. She and you had the opportunity to be at the press conference yesterday, I get there at the very end because I was Charing another event in the state house at the time. While $50,000,000 sounds like a lot of money, and it is, it's a pittance compared to what we need to be doing in terms of finance relative to broad based climate investment, especially when we're dealing with the electrification of the2569 transportation sector as a whole.2571 But I love the idea that was2573 put forth yesterday and I know that Senator Creem on this stanza as well is looking at broadening with a climate bank bringing in finance, private sector finance in the insurance industry as well.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Right. I
CREEM, I saw my name up there. This is not the ice cream.
You don't like the band. This is not the ice cream. Alright. Oh, okay. Well, that's a good point. The CRU. Can I ask you just I I just wanna make sure.
Oh, I was just
BARRETT - I just want to make note of the fact that and I could be wrong about this, but in Senate 2098, you've got a good working definition of zero emission vehicles as a reference to the statute we passed last year, but not to fuel efficient vehicles. We could use your we could use your creative thinking on that as well. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay.
Thank you. We'll take it back to the drawing.
Okay. Keep up the great work. Thank you. We're going
to hear from Anna Vandespec of the green energy consumers alliance.
We wanna welcome you to the hearing. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Hello?
ANNA VANDERSPEK - GREEN ENERGY CONSUMER ALLIANCE - SB 2140 - SB 2099 - HB 3139 - Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak today. My name is Anna Vanderspek, and I am the electric vehicle program director at Green Energy Consumers Alliance. If you haven't heard of us before, we are a non-profit organization working across Massachusetts to speed the transition to a low carbon future, and since 2016, we've been running an electric vehicle program called Drive Green that has helped educate thousands of people in Massachusetts about electric cars, help them make the switch, and we also work with car dealers across the state. So, all of that experience informs my testimony today. I will use my two minutes 26 seconds to talk about three Bills that we're here to support. The first is S 2140, an act establishing off peak charging rebates, which would call for the Department of Public Utilities to direct our utilities to offer off peak charging rebates to electric vehicle drivers. And, crucially, it lists exactly which benefits should be counted in calculating that rebate so that it is appropriately sized and has the biggest impact. We see 2140 as a win win because it will both encourage more Massachusetts residents to make the switch by offering even lower fuel costs. and protect the grid so that as we're adding all these electric vehicles, they don't exacerbate2734 moments of peak demand. Right now, we are in a place where2736 we need all the tools in the toolbox to accelerate EV adoption, so we think that is a tool we should take advantage of.
I'll also say that we support S 2099, which we just discussed about electric school buses. I don't think I need to go on about climate and public health impacts of electric school buses, but I do want to underline what has already been said, which is we've got some federal funding, but it's not nearly enough and this Bill has value both by creating an incentive program and the statewide2766 contract. I think the statewide contract piece is worth underlining because school districts are a little lost on where to start. Then finally, I do want to support H 3139, the fleet's bill that we've discussed. I understand the need for more funding,2782 especially with the medium and heavy-duty vehicles, but I do want to stress that this Bill also talks light duty vehicles, and there, it is entirely possible for state and municipal fleets to move fast, especially now that we have a commercial vehicle tax credit and a commercial charging tax credit from the inflation reduction act that are available to tax exempt entities via direct pay. So, I know that we need more help on school buses and medium and heavy-duty vehicles, but the other pieces of that Bill, we just need leadership and direction for municipalities and public entities to move there, there are good cost-effective options out there. So that's my testimony. Thank you very much.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER1 - Well, thank you very much for it.
BARRETT - Help me out with a legal question that has caused us to hesitate with regard to the electrification of private fleets? It's an interstate commerce question, a question of the limits that may be placed on Massachusetts freedom of action by the US constitution. I assume without having read the language closely in H 3139 that the Bill only proposes to reach fleets whose vehicles are registered in Massachusetts because we can't impose a requirement on private sector fleets or for that matter, provide an incentive on private sector fleets whose vehicles are registered in Rhode Island or in New Hampshire or in New York or2877 in Maine, not to mention fleet of FedEx vehicles where the vehicles may be registered in Delaware. So how do we use state action not to push all the registrations into those states because we're the only ones who have moved ahead, but instead to get the job done and can we really use sticks which is to say mandates or are we limited to carrots. In the drive act 2022, we already extend carats, meeting incentives to owners of private fleets in instances in which the vehicles are actually registered here. But I believe and this is the legal issue that that we're limited to vehicles that are registered here.
VANDERSPEK - My understanding and I admit I will have to double check on the Bill myself, but the mandates, the deadline scheduling is only for the public fleets or fleets serving a public purpose. Then my understanding, if I remember correctly, is that on private fleets, the languages along the lines of DOER shall figure out a plan, we'll make a plan to help incentivize or speed that transition. I do want to say that that legal issue is one that we run into all the time, which is why it is so important that Massachusetts has adopted the advanced clean cars and the advanced clean trucks standards but making sure that it is easy for fleets within Massachusetts and that it's not just the fleets that have multi state impact but also the smaller fleets that they can take advantage of that, that is something that those fleets in particular will need a little bit more support, a little bit more outreach, and we don't want to leave them behind.
BARRETT - Alright. Thank you. I do have a question about S 2140, here, I get to stop being a curmudgeon policy and I get to express solidarity with you. I think time of use rates is something that we would hope to address in the next two years, which is to say this year in 2024. In part because we've already mandated the DPU to require time of use submissions by the utilities, and the utilities have been forthcoming with sometime of use submissions. What would S 2140 bring to the table so to speak that the DPU proceedings that have already happened wouldn't? It mandates yet another DPU proceeding, but it seems to me that we may have pursued that avenue relatively effectively and that we're at a different point in the policy continuum in terms of making this happen. I believe several3059 utilities are under deadlines to come up with time of use rates?
VANDERSPEK - Yes, I'm so glad you asked this question. So last year of climate law did direct them to submit time of use rate plans within one year, and that deadline is August 11th, and we're waiting with bated breath to see what they come up with. The second part of what's in the climate law from last year is that the DPU has until the end of 2025 to issue an order, and part of the reason for that3089 delay is that time of use rates require revenue grade infrastructure to3096 count how many kilowatt hours are being used3098 when. So, the rollout of time of use rates is very integrally tied into the rollout of advanced metering infrastructure, which is undergoing the whole grid modernization process and will take a while. The reason we're here about off-peak charging rebates is that these are implementable right now. National Grid has an off-peak charging rebate right now, but it's very small, it's only 5¢ off per kilowatt hour in the summer and 3¢ off per kilowatt hour in the winter and they're using existing technology, either smart charging stations or vehicle telematics to gather that data.
Because it's an off-peak rebate and not a rate, you don't have to3134 wait for the advanced metering infrastructure. So, the first reason why3138 this is still relevant is that we can move faster because we have the technology. The second point is that the off-peak charging rebate that National Grid offers right now only takes into account the differential cost of generating the electricity off versus on peak but there are lots of other benefits to shifting load off peak in terms of transmission and distribution, greenhouse gas emissions, public health that all have value that are not being accounted for in that rebate. So, S 2140 lists out, here are the benefits that you need to calculate a value for and what will hopefully result from that is a larger off-peak charging rebate that it's still not a subsidy, it's still a just an accurate reflection of costs, but it'll be a larger price signal for existing drivers and3187 a bigger incentive for people considering making3189 the switch.
I'll say that in the electric vehicle dockets that took the last year and a half, this is one of the points that we made in our testimony saying it's great that National Grid has an off-peak charging rebate, but we would really like Eversource to have one too, and also, why aren't we counting these other benefits? And the DPU said thank you very much for your thought and we still have the 5¢ and the 3¢ and nothing for Eversource. So, this is a place where we think the state could play a bigger role in leading the conversation and bridge that gap until we have that metering infrastructure in 2025.
BARRETT - Well, that's very interesting, thank you. Can I ask an additional question in respect to this? There's a respected professor at MIT,3232 published an3234 Op Ed piece in the Globe two months ago, I know the professor's name is Chris Kannitel, he's George M Schultz, professor of Economics at MIT and Head of CEEPAR, the Center for Environmental and Energy Policy and Research. He argues, his point with respect to encouraging lower prices, not only for EV charging, but for heat pumps is that, right now on your electric bill, everything is volumetric, meaning volume dependent. He argues that generation is something that should be volume dependent, if you consume more electric power, you should pay more in the so-called generation charge. But he argues that a lot of the infrastructure, whether it's deficient at the moment or fully expanded, the cost of it doesn't expand with the number of electrons you use.
If you charge on your electric bill all the distribution and transmission charges, as well as the generation charges, if you make them all volume dependent, you're overcharging people who have EVs. Because I consume additional electrons, it's fine if I pay a volume dependent or so-called volumetric generation charge but on distribution and transmission, I should pay a flat fee or at least one that doesn't go up every time I charge my car or every time, I drive my heat pump. Have you guys, is the green energy consumers alliance taking a look at the kind of proposals that Professor Kannitel has advanced as an alternative way to getting at the same objective, which essentially to make it a little more affordable to charge an EV or for that matter a school bus if you're a private corporation that leases them to school districts or to run a heat pump? What do you think of this idea that too much is volumetric and not enough is flat rate even though the cost doesn't vary with volume consumed once the wires are in place?
VANDERSPEK - That is something I will definitely happily think about and get back to you on because I haven't read this study from MIT, and I want to make sure I understand it before I comment. The one thing I will say is that adding electric vehicles will require some build out of distribution and transmission networks as we're supplying more load in places that we didn't used to. There are many studies particularly out of California, which is quite ahead of us on the EV adoption curve about how much do those upgrades cost versus how much revenue do electric vehicle drivers pay into the system? It's found that it's a definite net benefit for the system as a whole that as we increase EV adoption that's putting a negative pressure on prices, because3423 people are paying in more in terms of the kilowatt hours, they're consuming than they're requiring in terms of structure upgrades. So, there's a couple of studies that I'm happy to send to you that reflect that and that that effect holds true even when there are off peak charging rebates or similar smart time varying rates. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. I want to recognize Senator Pacheco or senator Mark in in the event3447 that they have some questions, we appreciate your testimony.
Are you all set, Senator Patrico?
Yes. I am. Thank you.
Thank you. And the senator Mark, I know will let us know if he has something he'd like to say. So I wanna I wanna thank you very much, and I wanna
BARRETT - I want to return to my major point; I think this is actionable, especially given that interesting explanation you've just provided with respect to Senate 2140. I think this time of use thing is ready to rock in some fashion, and so I would encourage the advocacy community and the alliance in particular to keep working on this because I hope its moment has come. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Thank you.
is Emily Kelly here from ChargePoint?
Hello. It's your parent. Hi.
Hi, Emily. How are you? Thank you for checking inwards.
I'm doing well. How are you?
Good too good to have you testifying today.
Great. Okay. Well, I I'll get started then.
SPEAKER8 - Great. Okay. Well, I I'll get started then.
EMILY KELLY - CHARGEPOINT - HB 3859 - HB 3218 - HB 3139 - So thank you, Chair Barrett, and members of the committee for holding this hearing. My name is Emily Kelly, I'm a senior policy manager at ChargePoint. I will be submitting more detailed written testimony, but just want to relay our support on a few Bills today. So quick background on ChargePoint, we are a leading EV charging software network and hardware provider that was founded in 2007. We currently have over 250,000 ports worldwide, and in Massachusetts specifically, we have over 4000 charging ports on our network. We are dedicated to charging every type of EV on the market, including light,3561 medium, and heavy-duty vehicles and allowing people to charge at home, at work, and on the go. So, I just want to highlight our support of three Bills on the agenda today. The first one is Representative Decker's Bill, H 3859, which would establish a clean3580 fuel standard. So, at the most basic level, clean fuel standard that's a requirement for reducing the average carbon intensity of transportation fuels over time.
Where this policy exists today in California, Oregon, and British Columbia, we are seeing faster transportation electrification and higher levels of private investment in charging infrastructure. That's primarily because this policy reduces the operational costs of charging infrastructure and sends a signal to invest in EVs and charging stations. I'll just say over3618 the past decade, the clean fuel standard in the US has generated almost $15,000,000,000 for clean fuels and infrastructure including nearly $2,000,000,000 for transportation electrification, charging stations, and rebates. The next Bill I want to just comment on is Representative Roy's Bill H 3218. We believe it's crucial that we plan now for the grid grades that will be needed to support future charging hubs throughout Massachusetts. This Bill will help the utilities plan for transmission and distribution upgrades. I would also advocate for this study to3654 include some conversation about expedited interconnection timelines because that can sometimes be3663 a challenging process for EV charging providers and our customers.
Then lastly, we want to support Rep Barber and Rep Moschino's Bill, 3139, which would set deadlines to electrify school buses and public fleet and encourage private fleets to electrify for many3682 of the same reasons that others spoke about that we are certainly supportive of that effort. We would also, you know, encourage that the charging infrastructure piece is not left out of that conversation when we talk about electrifying the vehicles. So, with that, just, again, want to thank you, Chair Barrett, for your time, and also for establishment of the GMAC and the EVIC council, there's a lot of important conversations taking place there to make sure that charging is available and reliable in Massachusetts, so we've been participating in that as well. Again, look forward to continuing to support your work and happy to answer any questions you might have.
BARRETT - Thank you, Emily, and I want to thank your company, ChargePoint for so actively involving itself in general discussions about public policy over the last two or three years on the EV charger front. It's been an important source of education for Senate members of TUE, and I'm sure for the House as well. May I ask you something about H 3859, this question of a clean fuel standard, and by the way, I want to mention that Senator Pacheco3759 is very interested in this issue and I've always respected his interest. But at the end of the day, mixing ingredients with conventional petroleum refinery product gasoline involves finding the alternative product and biofuels, which I believe, but you're going to educate us right now if I'm wrong, biofuels as an additive or as an admixture with fossil fuels have become very controversial. There is active discussion, there is both a great deal of corporate interest in sin fuels and biofuels3806 and a great deal of doubt about whether the source can scale, and about whether we're taking land out of food production in order to create new mixtures for fueling vehicles. What exactly would get mixed in with the gasoline sold in Massachusetts if we were to adopt H 3859 and that it goes without saying that you can't be sure, so let's assume you've already said that, and let's instead ask you to identify the two leading sources of substitute materials today used by the industry?
KELLY - Well, that's a great question, and I know in other states where we've worked on this, within the coalition's that have worked on this, there have been representatives from the biodiesel and biofuel communities, and I think they're probably best suited to answer that. I3880 can do some research for you and3882 try to find out, but we typically, when we engage on this policy, it's typically to advocate for EV charging providers and our customers to be able to receive the credits that this standard generates. But I do know that there is a lot of discussion about the biofuels and biodiesel when these policies are put on the table, so I think that's a great question. I do think that this Bill just attempts to set up a framework, and then a lot of the other details are figured out by whatever agency or department would actually create the rules for this kind of policy, and I think that's where you could get into some level of detail about which industry can actually generate the credits, who generates a deficit, things like that. So, I don't know the specific answer to that question, I'm happy to look into it and get back to you, but I do know there are a lot of groups that represent those industries that are typically engaged in this is, as well that just may be better suited to get you those details.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, just to press the point a little bit -- Yeah. -- or to or to press the question.
BARRETT - We're talking here so far as I know about ethanol or about products that some would say are the waste products derived from agriculture or products that are the wastes of lumbering and forest activity. So far as I know, dirty hydrogen at the moment is the only other possibility. So, you've got ethanol, agricultural waste, so called, food waste, so called lumbering and wood waste and you've got hydrogen. Why should we pass a Bill without knowing what products would likely be used to reduce the carbon intensity of gasoline sold in Massachusetts. Wouldn't we want to know the answers first?
KELLY - No, I think that may sense. Usually, you know, electricity is another one of the low carbon fuels that can generate credits in these types of programs in addition to hydrogen.
BARRETT - You know, green hydrogen is a possibility, but we've already kind of earmarked uses of enormous amounts of green hydrogen for hard to decarbonize4059 transportation sectors like aviation and shipping. So, it's hard to imagine that we would have enough left over to provide a green additive for current gasoline. So, I don't want to belabor the point, but I just want you to know why I'm hesitating a little bit around the clean fuel standard, I would like to know what we were committing to and what our feedstocks were going to be before we pass statute. The other thing I just want to say if I might is that again, I'm interested with respect to H 3139 about the point you make, which is that when we talk about school buses that are green being 300% of the cost of diesel buses, you're right, we haven't included the cost of charging infrastructure which would increase the differential between this diesel bus and the green bus even more. So that just compounds the argument for our need to identify a revenue source. Wouldn't you think?
KELLY - Yes, absolutely. I think that the charging counsel that's meeting now could be a good forum to also talk about what potential funding mechanisms could be out there and I believe there is a fund already that was passed last year within the climate law as well that has some funding available for charging. So that could be4177 a potential idea or option, but, yes, I agree that, you know, a funding source certainly needs to be identified.
BARRETT - With respect to House 3218, filed by Representative Roy,4191 I have two questions, the first is that we have a requirement in Section 53 of a law we passed in 2022, the so-called drive act which requires electric distribution companies to produce grid modernization plan to accommodate the electrification of all activities that we would like to get out fossil fuels including heat pumps. Why would we4228 instead require additional activities with respect to EV charging but not heat pump conversion? Wouldn't it make sense to consider electrification in a coordinated way rather than silo ourselves, EVs over here, heat pumps over there?
KELLY - Sure. Yes, I understand that could definitely make sense. My only thought is that this4262 particular Bill knowing that the nevy planning is happening right now, and the state is getting that funding from the federal government, you know, and this Bill specifically talks about planning for those larger charging hubs that will exist in Massachusetts and presumably, the nevy sites, you know, are those part of those larger charging hubs at least that's coming up like now. So perhaps that's, you know, the state's getting ready to release an RFP, I think, soon on that, and work will get started, you know, within the next year or two on those sites, so I'm thinking maybe this Bill is trying to prioritize that. To us, that makes sense if that's the goal, just knowing that that funding is4312 coming and those sites, you know, will be constructed within the next year or two. So, there's a little that should be a priority in our opinion is to get ready for potential sites that are coming.
BARRETT - Well, that's a fair point, and one more thing about it. My other question is that H 3218 seems to anticipate or comes close to presuming4338 that the electric distribution company is essentially Eversource, National Grid, Unitell, will move out ahead of other developers of EV charging. I'm interested that ChargePoint is endorsing this Bill because it seems to anticipate quite possibly the electric utilities alone owning the charging infrastructure. Maybe this is just a matter of fine tuning the language, but it's for example, let me cite proposed new Section 92D Sub Paragraph A, not only are EV charging modernization programs to be put together but each electric distribution company will have to submit plans for implementation of transmission and distribution system build necessary to accommodate the charging network.
So, there's distribution and transmission, yes, but4410 there's also the presumption that the electric companies would own some of the downstream assets. For example, the electric companies, but only the electric company, you wouldn't be involved and nor would competitors to the utilities. They're given a special opportunity to4435 work with DOER to identify optimal sites along or near Massachusetts highways in each electric distribution company service territory4444 suitable to host electric vehicle fast charging hubs. So, is there a way in which we're creating a competitive advantage for EVs when we should be seeking competition instead in preserving the possibility of charge point among others while competing to install and to own and by extension site this EV charging operation?
KELLY - That's a really good point and a good question. From my read, in my opinion, and I haven't talked to other stakeholders about this Bill yet, but I was under the impression that the utilities would again, put forward plans so that4500 they could be proactive in planning for any transmission or distribution upgrades. I did not think that this Bill was saying that they would also own and operate the actual charging infrastructure, I assumed it was the other infrastructure that needs to be in place, not the chargers. Because, certainly, we would like to see it be a competitive process as well when it comes to figuring out who's actually going to own and operate the chargers. So that was my read of it, and ChargePoint would love to be part of that planning process as well when we're talking about identifying sites because we may have customers in the queue that are interested in owning and operating stations potentially along those charging hubs. So that was my read of it, but I'll be sure to check with some of the other stakeholders to make sure that that's what exactly the language is saying.
BARRETT - Well, thank you. Just to clarify, the language is a tad ambiguous, so I'm not suggesting that this would preempt a row for ChargePoint, I guess instead, I'm asking whether clarity on the question wouldn't be advisable? I think it's a little unclear who would end up owning the stuff if only the electric distribution companies are involved in planning for their stuff and we would want4595 to make it clear that the modules or the equipment to be installed would be utility owned, but could also be owned by those would offer price and quality competition to the electric distribution companies.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Yeah, absolutely. -So with that, I want to -- Yeah. I want to ask if Senator Patico or senator if they have any questions, and I -- up so much time myself.
Yeah,
PACHECO - I just wanted to thank you for your testimony and also testimony on the fuel standard. I understand the Chairman's question, but Mr. Chairman as somebody who was a co-sponsor of the Bill, just wanted to clarify that the goal of the fuel scan to Bill is actually to bring greenhouse gas emissions down and by bringing greenhouse gas emissions down, and I can tell you a few places that are way ahead of us in doing this, and that's in Europe, and that's at the European Union. European Union is coming out I think it might have been earlier this week or maybe next week with their official new standard relative to biofuels, and how those biofuels will be utilized, they are looking at a very broad-based scenario here. As you know, better than most that their goals have been for some time now to get down to zero emissions.
As I referenced yesterday in another forum, the country of Portugal which is a little over 10,000,000 people, we're a little over 7,000,000 people here in Mass, they're already over 60% renewable energy technologies in place and within the next year and a half, they'll be at 80% renewable energy technologies with electrification places. Within the European Union, they're using a lot of the biofuels, are in the hard to decarbonize sectors of the transportation system and when you look at the biofuel system and you look at our own states, California has been putting in place a clean fuel standard for some time now, and their law is actually very prescriptive, much more prescriptive, than the Bill4756 that I corresponded here. But the reason why it is less4760 prescriptive is because of the new4762 technologies that are out there and the new fuel standards that have been utilized and the opportunity for the regulators and the agencies, as4772 Emily had referenced, to actually put in place the standards, that could be sometimes overlooked, when you don't have a chair looking at something that is as detailed as you may be on this particular set of issues and missed by the legislative branch. So that's what we're looking at here, the goal is to bring down carbon emissions and if they're not bringing down the carbon emissions, then there's a fee that's paid and that fee can be utilized to help decarbonize the transportation sector. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
And so
that's -- But thank you, Senator. -- is. Thank you. Yeah. No. No.
BARRETT - I really appreciate that. But just to reiterate, my concern is not that emissions and transportation wouldn't4827 come down, my concern is with the secondary4829 and tertiary effects of bringing emissions down and transportation, but possibly at the expense of food production.
PACHECO - The food production piece, that's a real serious part, but the Biden administration, the UN, and the EU have just signed an agreement to bring methane emissions down, and one of the major ways they're going to do that is through waste on farmland and other places that are utilized differently so you can actually utilize those fuels.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So, it's -- Yeah. Good point.
SPEAKER3 - you know, Thank you.
No. I think we should.
BARRETT - I want to thank you, Senator, by the way. You more than anyone else, you bring an international perspective to these questions, and it's one that I benefit from and that other member and that the entire Senate benefits from. So, thank you for keeping an eye on developments in Europe and elsewhere, it informs our debate. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So, I want to thank Emma. Thank you very much. You're a good sport. Thank you. And
thanks for testifying.4900
Great. Thank you. Have a good 1.
I have a charge point charger in my garage, by the way. It costs me an arm and a lot. But I'm satisfied with him. It works well. Right. It does work.
SPEAKER8 - Great. That's good to hear.
Could we hear from Johannes Eppke from the CLF?
How are you? Very well. Did I pronounce your name correctly? Johannes Epka. I'm sorry. How's that last name?
Johannes Epka. Thank you very much, Johannes. Good to have you with us.
Thank you for clarifying.
JOHANNES EPKE - CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION - HB 3139 - Good afternoon, Chair Barrett, Senators Pacheco and Mark. I am Johannes Epke from Conservation Law Foundation speaking in support of H 3139. Before I get to the Bill, Chair Barrett, I want to answer your questions about the two hearings and just to say, we are at your disposal, we're close to the statehouse, and it's easy for us to pop over, so if it works better for you same day or different days, that's easy for us. I do not mind two bites of the apple, but I just hope that the chair does not expect too much higher a standard of polished testimony. Turning to the fleet electrification question, I will recognize the Chair's immense expertise and focus on the climate over the last several sessions, and so not go into too much detail on the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of electrification of fleets and turn instead to some of the other benefits that we would like to see there. In particular, I'll focus on what the environmental community often calls the traditional pollutants effects of fossil fuel transportation and respond to your questions around the cost briefly.
So first on the traditional pollutant side, you know, these aren't just carbon emissions coming out of the tailpipes of diesel-powered school buses, we're also talking about toxic particulates, heavy metals, socks, NOx, also of nasty stuff. So, the public health benefits of electrification of fleets cannot be overstated5032 and I will highlight, in particular, one set of fleets where this is particularly important, which is school buses. So, when it comes to exposing children to pollutants like this, their lungs are5045 still developing, they are particularly susceptible to the negative5049 effects of exposure to pollution and CLF has a particular interest in this, we have been engaged in lawsuits against school bus companies, private bus companies, for violations of the idling laws, the anti-idling laws for several years. There are numerous instances, one bus company in 2019, we have video of them exceeding the idling limits 42 times and this is particularly relevant in the school bus context where just one minute of idling a bus can result in emissions ending up inside the passenger compartment5084 of school bus,5086 thus exposing the children to the pollution for their whole ride to school.
So, the electrification just makes this problem much easier to solve rather than, you know, going out and filming school buses and making sure that they are not exceeding the three- or5101 five-minute limit, you know, electrification just eliminates the concern about the local pollutant impact. The other populations that I will point to5113 in particular are the environmental justice populations who are disproportionately impacted by transportation pollution generally and are often on the routes5123 served by or driven through by these fleets. Turning to the cost question that you raised, the electric buses and fleets certainly do have the increased up-front cost, but there are cost savings not just in maintenance, but in the fuel as well. A few cities that have done pilot studies or reviews of cost have released results, and I will point out two in particular. Seattle determined that investing in ZEVs would save $3,000,000 when compared to the purchase of gas vehicles over a decade, and New York City5167 found that the annual maintenance cost of EVs in their fleet ranged from $2005171 to $400 compared to the annual maintenance fee of a gas vehicle of $900 to $1800.
So, though there is an upfront cost, it is an investment, and there is a good return there,5186 and the costs make more sense if you look in the long term. Very briefly on the unfunded mandate question, I will point out, you know, not that the MBTA and a cache strapped school district are the same thing, but the legislature passed just in the last session a mandate for the MBTA to electrify all of their bus fleet and as we well know, the MBTA is not a cash flush entity, so identify that we will need to be allocating more money, finding more money for the electrification of fleets more broadly, and the school bus question is therefore not a unique problem in that respect.
BARRETT - Well, that's a good point. I have another question for you. Mandates to modernize publicly stuff owned by the Commonwealth have actually been in place in one form or another for years. I'm not sure when we wrote the the first quasi mandate, but it could have been six or seven years ago. What I'm finding is that it's impossible for us to monitor the executive branch's execution of the current quasi mandates or outright once. We just don't know what the hell they're buying, it seems as if the laws we passed today have been widely ignored and not effectively policed or monitored either by the legislature or by the advocacy community or by the media. So I'm looking at these very5294 aggressive new proposed mandates, and I'm not asking for a rhetorical answer right now, because I'm sure you could come up with what if I press you, like pay attention legislature and stuff like that. Instead, I just want to identify that for one reason or another follow through5315 and monitoring is almost non existent.
So far as5319 I know, we have no idea what proportion of the Commonwealth's fleet is electrified today. Monitoring is made more challenging because we have to provide all these exceptions, we have to use words like where necessary. As soon as you give a cash strapped executive branch that kind of language, the cows go out of the barn or whatever, agricultural metaphor you might wish to use. So how are we going to again, you don't need to give me an answer, but I just want to flag this issue of enforcement because it's proven to be more difficult? I can tell you whether the overall emissions limits for the state for 2025 are going to be realized if you give me 18 months after the last day of 2025 to make sure all the data comes in and I can also tell you whether the sub limits for 2025 by June 30th 2027, I'll be able to tell you whether we met those, but I can't figure out a way yet to tell you whether 60% of all purchases for a given calendar year have been electric, and it's very frustrating.
EPKE - Like, I do have two quick answers in terms of enforceability or ensuring that the executive moves forward. One is, as you identified, there are both procurement and operations deadlines. We built the procurement deadlines in to make sure that they are making good progress towards operations deadlines, so that is the key feature to allow us a lens in as early as possible. The other piece I would point to is to the extent that the legislature can make these enforceable through citizen suits, CLF would be very happy to.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Not sure you'd be delighted. US.
BARRETT - Well, I could see we could solve CLF's fundraising problem, if there are any.
EPKE - Well, we can certainly seek attorney cost recovery in these, but nobody's getting rich off of these lawsuits. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Hey, Ernest. Well, well, thank you. I I appreciate your testimony. I wanna ask if Senator Pacheco oh, actually, my staff asks me to ask you an additional question. Thank you, Audrey. And
BARRETT - Another question and that's whether there's a differentiation in H 3139 between transportation using fossil fuels and heating because we are we are coming up in some of these lessons learned to date that there is a a real problem with keeping kids warm inside a school bus where the doors are constantly opening and5485 closing, and where electric heating5489 as I think we're all learning with respect to heat pumps requires a5494 kind of steady state because it doesn't come on the way a ignition driven or combustion driven heating system does?
EPKE - Like, I appreciate the question. I know that the full battery electric buses that the MBTA has been piloting have had some heating concerns, their range goes down during the coldest days when they're running those heaters, and so we are certainly opposed to fossil fuel heaters on5521 electric buses and calling that a full electric vehicle because it's just not. I think part of the solution there is advancement in technology where the school fleets might consider a smaller battery that charges twice in the day, in the morning and then in the afternoon. You know, the MBTA bus I think are more complicated in that respect because they are more frequently running all day where they would need to look at technology solutions like enroute charging, and motion charging, to make sure that they5555 have that capacity. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony today, and thank you for your feedback on on how to schedule these things.
SPEAKER9 - -My pleasure. - As
SPEAKER7 - it was so much.
SPEAKER1 - Is Anthony Willingham here from Electrify America? What's that? What'd you do? Oh, and he Anthony, hi. How are you?
SPEAKER10 - Hello. I am here, and I'm here virtually.
SPEAKER1 - I I We can see that.
SPEAKER3 - Good to
SPEAKER1 - have you with us.
SPEAKER10 - Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - And you're here to5590 testify on 3859,
age 38 59. I I believe. Correct.
ANTHONY WILLINGHAM - ELECTRIFY AMERICA - HB 3859 - Greetings, members of the committee and staff. Thanks for having me. I'm Anthony Willingham, the state government affairs manager electrify America and I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of H 3859, an act relative to clean fuel standard. Briefly about Electrify America, we're the largest open direct current fast charging network in the US and are investing over $2,000,000,000 over 10 years in zero emission vehicle infrastructure. The intent of this investment is to enable millions of Americans to discover the benefits of electric driving and support the build out of a nationwide network of ultrafast community and highway chargers that are convenient and reliable. The Commonwealth has a special place in our hearts and minds at electrify America. Last month, we celebrated the 5th anniversary of opening our very first station, which is located in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Since then, our network has grown to include over 3500 chargers across 800 stations 46 States and the District of Columbia.
In Massachusetts, Electrify America has over 60 chargers across 16 stations with additional stations under development. Again, I'm testifying in support of a clean fuel standard. A clean fuel standard is perhaps the single most effective policy for reducing the carbon in density of transportation sector and growing the clean fuel industry while in its nascency. For a host of reasons outside the scope of this hearing, public DC fast charging stations operate at slim economic margins, commonly at a financial loss. Such a volatile economic market disincentives the proliferation of fast charging infrastructure, which hurts EV drivers at large though has a disproportionately negative impact on rural, disadvantaged and underserved communities. A clean fuel standard helps clean fuel industry thrive despite these difficult economics by creating a direct funding stream without the use of public dollars to support low and zero carbon fuel providers in the Commonwealth. So how does it work?
A clean fuel standard imposes top down pressure on carbon intense fuels to decarbonize and provide bottom up financial support for the clean fuel industry, allowing them to grow. The programs that's a maximum carbon intensity for a transportation fuels, a fuel that exceeds5738 that intensity generates a deficit that must be reconciled while cleaner fuels with a carbon intensity below that5744 threshold generate a credit, that credit would be equal to the difference between the actual carbon intensity and the maximum carbon intensity permitted by the standard. Deficit generators can reconcile their deficit by decarbonizing their fuel and by purchasing credits from fuels with lower carbon intensity. These credits generated on the credit market create a direct funding stream that support low and zero carbon fuel providers and incentivize carbon intense fuels to become more sustainable. This additional funding would enable charging companies to deploy stations in more regions across the Commonwealth, including in low utilization areas where a station is even less likely to be economically viable in the short term. Finally, to emphasize, this investment in low carbon fuels would not be financed by public dollars.
A low carbon fuel standard can decarbonize transportation fuels without creating costs at the gas pumps. Clean fuel standard programs established in other states such as California, Washington, Oregon have showed that such program can drive significant reductions in greenhouse gas emission with negligible, if not in unmeasurable effect on petroleum fuel prices. In 2021, Oregon's program resulted in the reduction of just under 1,500,000 metric tons of CO25820 at the cost of only 5¢ per gallon of gasoline. In California which has enforced a clean fuel standard for over a decade, there's been no correlation between implementation of the program and an increase in fuel prices. In fact, fuel prices were higher at the beginning of the program when the value of generated clean fuel credit was very low. The significance here is that when compliance costs were low, fuel remained high. More recently in 2019, California experienced a measurable drop in fuel prices while simultaneously clean fuel standard credit values remain high. So in contrast, when the program's compliance costs were5855 high, gas prices actually fell.
This data underscores that fuel prices are predominantly driven by global petroleum markets, not the compliance costs of reducing pollution through clean fuels standard. As seen through the example of other states who have instituted a clean fuel standard, the program could also create multimillion dollars of annual funding stream for equity based objectives and environmental justice priorities. These priorities include electrifying public transportation, like school bus and transit buses, electrifying heavy duty freight trucks, financing rebates and incentives for low income individuals5888 to switch to an EV, providing charging for multiunit developments, offering multilingual education and outreach campaigns, and many more. Put more concisely, each of the goals and priorities expressed in this Bill subject to today's hearing can be financed by revenue generated through a clean fuel standard. Again, each of these5910 objectives could be advanced without the5912 use of public funds. A clean fuel standard ensures that entities responsible for carbon emissions in the transportation fuel sector play a direct role in realizing some of the shifts to alternative. I appreciate the opportunity to testify, and I'm very happy to answer any questions you5932 may have.
BARRETT - Thank you5935 you very much for joining us,5937 Anthony. You need to educate us a little bit certainly, and you need to educate me. The interest that your company has and ChargePoint has in5950 the clean fuel standard totally escapes me. I do not see the5956 nexus at all. It's as if you must have another division that is interested in these additives to gasoline, I totally understand the picture making on the merits. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I can certainly understand the picture making on the merits. I totally can't get past the disconnect5980 between the business you're in and your testimony today. I know you're reading from a written statement and I'm not trying to put you on the spot, there could be somebody else at Electrify America who's best equipped but I'm going to ask why you're interested in this issue. I have some real problems with low carbon fuel standards of the sort that California has but what really mystifies me is why a seller of charging stations should6019 care one way or the other?
WILLINGHAM - So a couple things there. This Bill as introduced and other similar programs in other states and provinces in Canada, electricity is considered a transportation fuel. Electrify America's primary business model is we are owners and operators6043 of charging stations, so we own, operate, maintain, and6047 retain the revenue generated from usage of the stations. As that is, the providers of electricity of the transportation fuel would be considered or is considered a clean fuel under the clean fuel standard, and thus we are credit general. As credit generators, we can then sell those credits to fuel providers that are much higher in carbon intensity so to help them when they generate deficits reconcile that deficit.
BARRETT - Let me ask you a follow on question, you're saying that every owner of a retail gasoline station, if the owner is selling so called low carbon fuel, is gaining credits that it can go out and sell in some sort of marketplace?
WILLINGHAM - Is your question referring to like gas station owners who also host a charging station?
BARRETT - No, I'm just talking about a gas station owner, period.
WILLINGHAM - So the carbon intensity of a fuel is measured, we call it on a wheels to wells basis, throughout the entire life cycle of the fuel from both its production and refining to its distribution. A lot of fuel providers are vertically integrated, meaning they both refine and sell their fuel, and therefore, they are responsible for being compliant with the program. In instances where the fuel is refined and then sold or responsibility for that fuel is transferred to another entity, with that transfer comes the transfer of6173 responsibility to comply with the program. I guess the answer6180 to your question is it depends on the business model of the gas station owner, where they get their fuel from, how that responsibility is transferred or isn't transferred, it depends.
BARRETT - You wouldn't want us to see us adopt a low carbon fuel standard because it's a source of additional revenue for charging companies, we would have to believe that the policy made sense on its own, right?
WILLINGHAM - It does make sense on its own. I'll say, my background is in urban planning, and I come from 10 years in state and local government, so I do very much see myself as a policy person. Low carbon fuel standard does create the investment in cleaner fuels that helps build the clean fuel industry and building the clean fuel industry complements other electrification and transportation electrification goals as the clean fuel industry is allowed to thrive if we are given the means to build out additional chargers, expand current stations, improve the services at current stations, that helps incentivize people to adopt an electric vehicle because their EV lifestyle becomes more viable and becomes less scary.
BARRETT - I understand, Anthony.6276 Let me just say that, we don't have to pursue this anymore now, but I actually spend a significant amount of time in conversation with folks at MIT, they happen to be to their enormous credit, committed to energy policy in a way that folks at other famous universities in the area aren't, they're deeper into the weeds, and they tell me that the clean fuel standard is a very cost and effective way to remove metric tons of pollution from the atmosphere. It does work, but it works at a significant cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent removed. So they are strongly opposed and they cite scientific papers which I haven't read that I would read before making a decision, they argue the California's approach is very cost ineffective. I would recommend that Professor Chris Kannitel's research on this point, he happens to have been California based before moving to MIT whenever he moved here maybe a decade ago. and he strongly argues against the cost effectiveness6348 of low carbon fuel standards and his strong position, he's an informal advisor to me, his strong position on the topic has caused me to hesitate, but I only mentioned that in the interest of transparency.
WILLINGHAM - I would love to see the research that he's pointing to genuinely. A question that I would have is cost effective for whom? The state of the Commonwealth jurisdiction implementing a clean fuel standard, there's almost no cost for executing and implementing the program and regular residents who are filling up at the gas pump haven't witnessed6398 in other clean fuel standard programs, haven't witnessed an increase in costs in their fuel prices. So genuine question,6406 for whom is it not cost effective?
BARRETT - That's a fair question, but I think he's probably taken into account the impact on food supplies and agriculture.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
but let's not in any event, I wanna thank you very much for for your testimony, and you've certainly surprised me by but thank you for explaining why your business model
revolves to some degree around the queue. clean fuel standard. I appreciate your your clarity there.
Of course, and really happy to be a resource to you and committee staff on the issue and speak more about this6443 going forward.
SPEAKER1 - Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. So senator Chico, do you have any questions to ask of Anthony?
SPEAKER3 - Just for clarification, because I think your your comment was about the particular professor at MIT. You you weren't saying that MIT as a whole was opposed to a clean fuel standard. Right?
SPEAKER1 - No. You you're absolutely right. I stand I stand first.
SPEAKER3 - Yeah. Okay. Because idea
SPEAKER1 - what MIT is for.
SPEAKER3 - Okay. You're right. Yeah. Because it's interesting that so many MIT professors that are working with the European Union on this particular issue. Alright. Thank you.
SPEAKER1 - Good point. Yeah. Thank you, and that point well taken. Thank you very much, Anthony.
I have a is there a Jessica Nekrask and I apologize for mispronouncing the crass as I'm sure I have, but is is Jessica with us and does she wish to testify?
SPEAKER11 - I am with you, and I would very much appreciate the opportunity.
My name's Jessica Niecraz. I'm the director of state policy for the American Biogas Council. We are the leading -- I'm sorry.
SPEAKER1 - Could you the American which which counsel? American Biogas. Oh, biogas. The the American Biogas Council. Yes. Thank you very much, Jessica. Good to have you with
SPEAKER11 - Thank you. It's it's an honor to be here.
JESSICA NIEKRASZ - AMERICAN BIOGAS COUNCIL - HB 3859 - We are here to express our very strong support for H 3859. A clean fuel standard will provide many economic and environmental benefits.6539 I will submit written comments, and I can talk about how great ABC is, we represent over 400 companies that embrace the entire supply chain of biogas but I really love the organic conversation that has been generating here, and so I'm going to kind of go off script a little bit. Listen, biogas is fascinating because the way it's generated is by capturing methane that comes off of waste streams. This can be from animal, agriculture, it can be from municipal waste, it can be from landfill gas, it can be6582 from food diversion. So then you're taking methane that would normally be released into the environment,6588 capturing it, and it can be turned into several different products, renewable natural gas, liquefied natural gas, those can power vehicles and buses, it can be turned into electricity, so then that would charge electric vehicles potentially. So there's a lot of things that biogas can be turned into that are beneficial for a state for the environment and creating renewable energy. Research has shown that there's roughly about 40 projects in the state of Massachusetts with a potential for 123, that means that we could we estimate that 10,000,000,000 cubic feet of renewable methane from biogas could be produced yearly for those specific uses that I've mentioned.
Biogas projects could also add6643 nearly 130,000,000 gasoline gallon equivalents of fuel based on that RNG and LNG that I've mentioned. It helps reduce the greenhouse gas emissions, we've seen what the warming of the planet does based on those wildfires that were up in Canada. More importantly, it would generate investment in the state, creating construction jobs, as well as several hundreds permanent jobs. So with all that, I will wrap up, but we really believe in a clean field standard. I can also speak a little bit more to the clean field standards across the country if that's of interest.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Yes, I have a number of questions. So, Jessica, I want to thank you very much, and I want to I guess, apologize is the wrong word, but I hadn't realized that the three minute timer had been turned on. I think I did ask that it'd be turned on, and then I promptly forgot about it. So I sorry that you felt the pressure there.
I've
BARRETT - I have questions about the low carbon fuel standard. I haven't raised questions about biogas, I do have questions about it, but I wasn't questioning the general case6729 for using a methane from landfill or methane from cows. This legislature supported forms of a biogas used in the past, but the question arises to the priority for which they should be reserved because the supplies are limited compared to the use is contemplated. We're hearing about proposals to preserve all the natural gas infrastructure in Massachusetts because they can take some syngas or biogas mixtures. Now we're hearing6765 that we can mix this stuff with every gallon of gasoline sold, there's this question of sustainable aviation fuel. We've got proposals for expanding jet hangers at Hanscom field, an asset owned by Mass port and they're talking about moving slowly off high polluting aviation fuel by using these so called SAF or sustainable aviation fuel alternatives. It seems to me like this is a cipher being plugged into every conceivable argument as a way of preserving fossil fuel.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that it can be used in places, what are the priority uses for anaerobic digestion produced biogas, for example, and what should be further down on the list? I had always understood that hard to electrify transportation was the priority, that would be aviation and trans oceanic shipping,6842 and6844 there are questions about the availability of this stuff sufficient for those purposes. Can we also fit it into every natural gas pipeline and every gallon of gasoline? It's mind blowing to wonder where all6859 the supplies would then come from.6861
NIEKRASZ - Yes, I'm going6863 to give you a really pragmatic, in the chat, I'm going to drop in a video, it is an overview6871 of a project that was built in Dane County,6873 Wisconsin where they are taking the gas off of the landfill, they are cleaning it up to renewable natural gas, they are using it for their vehicle fleets. They have also built a decanting station so other projects can inject for a fee into that pipeline as well and it's a really successful project, really forward thinking. I believe it's been in operation since 2019.
BARRETT - But, Jessica, that's a totally different issue, you're using a fuel6905 ad to power vehicles that are proximate to the source of the fuel, so you're avoiding having to build transportation infrastructure. I totally get it that if they were a farm in Western Mass that was using a lot of cow manure that you might and I've seen projects in Western Mass, but use that fuel on-site to power an agricultural related piece of machinery. But now we're talking about using the stuff hundreds and thousands of miles from where it's produced in a gallon6942 of gasoline sold in the city of Boston, that seems like a stretch.
NIEKRASZ - You know what, I wanted to on the answer to that, and if it's okay, I'd like to just kind of think on it a little bit and get back to you. so that I don't misspeak on the topic. But what I will say is that projects with access to interstate pipelines, the quality of the biogas once it's been upgraded is the exact same of any natural gas that has been mined out of the ground, that's where a clean field standard comes in handy.
BARRETT - Jessica, I appreciate it, I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but what I've heard, what this committee has heard, but what I've heard as an individual legislator is that, again, the quantities available, legitimate quantities from agricultural operations, let's say are adequate to drive local uses on that same farm, let's say or nearby but no one is claiming with a straight face that this is sufficient to justify the maintenance of every natural gas pipeline and every station pumping of fossil fuel for our transportation purposes. It seems like there's a little bit of math that we need to do before we could support this Bill. The low carbon fuel standard anticipated by this legislation would anticipate these kinds of fuels being mixed with gasoline and would delay I would think our transition to 20 emission vehicles, that's asking for a lot.
NIEKRASZ - The infrastructure's present and can take on the extra RNG, the challenge is that and I'm not talking as a former owner and operator of a digestion facility and just with my experience, I'll put my ABC hat off to the side and say, there's a couple of challenges with getting to zero emissions because we need the transmission capacity to do it, and I see biogas and its uses as a yes and to get to that point. Regardless, we're always going to have waste streams that need to be processed and if we can create renewable energy out of the methane that's being captured off those waste streams, it's a win for the environment. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Fair enough, Jessica. And and, yeah, get us any additional material you can, and I I listen. I appreciate your you're hanging in there and engaging with me on this point.
SPEAKER11 - Thank you. Yeah. Please reach out with to the American Biogas Council too. We are delighted to have the any of these conversations.
SPEAKER1 - Well, yes. No. I I expect that we will be in touch. Thank you very much. Thank you. Is Steve Dodge here from the American Petroleum7172 Institute?
SPEAKER12 - That Steve Dodge is not7176 here, but Steve Dodge from Clean Fuels Alliance America is.
SPEAKER1 - Ah, well, there, you're you're a familiar face. You look like the other Steve Dodge. Good to have you with us.
STEVE DODGE - CLEAN FUELS ALLIANCE AMERICA - HB 3859 - Thank you, Senator, and thanks for the opportunity to testify. For the record, my name is Steve Dodge, and I am director of regulatory affairs for Clean Fuels Alliance America. I am here to testify in support of House Bill 3859, an act relative to fuel standards as we've discussed would establish a low carbon fuel standard program for Massachusetts. I know from having been around in a previous life, Senator Pacheco has filed, I don't7213 think it's an exaggeration to say he has filed these types of Bills for decades, I think it's been that long. But clean7220 fuels is the biomass based, and7222 by the way, I'm hoping to be able to answer some of your questions, Mr.7226 Chairman by the end of my testimony. Clean fuels is the biomass based fuels industry's primary organization for technical, environmental, and quality assurance programs. Clean fuels has been actively engaged with legislators and regulators, and all of the states that have low carbon7243 fuel standards, which include California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as those states that are actively considering LCFS type programs in including New York, Vermont, Maryland, and of course, right here in Massachusetts where Mass DEP has proposed to clean heat standard for the thermal heat sector.
A low carbon fuel standard such as the one proposed in this Bill is the most cost effective way to decarbonize liquid fuels, fuels that will be needed7271 for the foreseeable future in a hard to fully electrify areas7275 like heavy duty transportation and off road equipment, not to mention, a thermal7280 heat sector. While electrification is an important pathway to reducing carbon emissions, it cannot7286 be the only pathway and we all know that time is not on our side. I should have the biomass based diesel made from waste and I emphasize waste, not food feedstocks, primarily waste soy oil, use cooking oil, yellow grease, waste animal fats, and other waste feedstocks has been the number one contributor of credits in7310 California's low carbon fuel standard program. California is exhibit A initiating the nation's first LCFS back in 2011 in a state by the way that is the 4th largest economy in the world and is perhaps the toughest jurisdiction on carbon reduction. It has been phenomenally successful in reducing carbon emissions from the transportation sector primarily through the use of biomass based fuels, drop in fuels that require no modifications to existing diesel engines, not car engines, I'll talk about that in a minute.
In fact, California is in track now to displace nearly half of its fossil fuel based diesel fuel with biomass based diesel. Without renewable fuels that resulted from the LCFS program, fuels like biodiesel and renewable diesel California's tailpipe fossil CO27363 would have been 15,000,000 metric tons higher in 2020. The reduction is equivalent to taking 3,200,000 passenger vehicles off the road for the year. While the success of California's LCFS demonstrates the critical role low carbon fuels are playing to achieve carbon reductions today by reducing greenhouse gases 74% on average using biodiesel and renewable diesel so substantially reduces particulate matter emissions, and the health impacts and costs associated with them. So it it's working in California and Oregon and now in Washington, why can't it work in Massachusetts? If I can take another moment maybe to answer a couple of your questions, I do want to point out, and you and Senator Pacheco were around to remember this, but a companion Bill to the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act was Chapter 206 an act relative to clean energy biofuels signed by Governor7423 Patrick in 2008.
7425 It7425 required the state to adopt a biofuels mandate for both transportation and gas and heating. It was supposed to start B5 blends by 2013, literally two years later and a day before that was supposed to take effect, Governor Patrick with a stroke of his pen, executive order, suspended that Bill and a mandate is one tool in our toolbox to reduce carbon and LCFS is another. As you know, with the 2008 Global Solutions Act, you empowered the Governor, the executive branch to initiate or adopt some type of market based carbon reduction mechanism like an LCFS. So my point is that if either of those two programs, either the mandate or the LCFS had been in place the last 12 years or so, just think of the carbon reductions that could have occurred. I've gone way over my time, but I do want to talk, if it's okay, Mr. Chairman, very briefly about California, this may help you out a little bit. So I'm talking about biomass based diesel for diesel engines which are different from gasoline engines. Now the low carbon fuel standard in California applies to all transportation liquid fuels.
So when that program first started, in the gasoline side, you're really only7516 limited to ethanol blends, and that's really 10%, right, 15%7520 tops unless you had a flex fuel vehicle, but essentially, it was E10 is all you can use. So in the early days, California went to a lower side, CI index for their ethanol, which meant they actually imported sugar cane, I think this is right from Brazil, that was ethanol made from sugar cane as opposed to domestic ethanol. But after that, as the CI index lowers as a result of LCFS, the only place they can go is to EVs. There's no place else on the pass for gasoline vehicles, primarily passenger vehicles. The diesel side is another thing, there are no large electric black tractor trailer trucks being made yet that may happen in the future, but for large scale trucks, heavy duty trucks, drayage vehicles, off road vehicles, tractors, locomotion, sustainable aviation, all that, there is no place to go other than to squeeze the carbon out of the traditional diesel fuel and that's where biomass based diesel fuel comes in. So we're not trying to preserve fossil fuel, we're trying to replace it ultimately with the goal of being 100% biomass based diesel for heavy duty trucks and off road and locomotive and shipping and so forth.
The other point I want to make is that you mentioned I think you said we don't know what goes into biomass based fuels or biofuels, we actually do, we know very well because it has to meet ASTM standards, has to meet federal regulations, we know that palm oil is out, cannot use palm oil and meet the federal definition of an advanced biofuel. So we know because there are established methods primarily by Argonne National Laboratories and the so called Greek model, which is used by the EPA, used by California and other jurisdictions to measure the life cycle analysis of biofuels and the feed stocks that go in the biofuels. So it's kind of a wells to wheels analogy. So that science is there, it's what California uses, it's what Washington, Oregon, and other entities use, EPA uses to measure those life cycle analysis. I guess the final point I want to make is that is we all know what the IPCC has said that we have to reduce carbon emissions immediately, so whether you consider biomass based fuels for hard to decarbonize or hard to electrify sectors, a bridge to electrification or a bridge to 100% biomass based fuels, as soon as you start using biomass based diesel, it starts reducing carbon immediately, and I think that's really I think our collective goal is trying to do that. You mentioned supplies, supplies are not an issue, the industry sold over 3 billion gallons of biomass based diesel last year. EPA projects it'll be 6,000,000,000 by 2030, and we think it'll be well over that. So if you look at the numbers, the supplies are not an7705 issue. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So I'll end it there. And again, I appreciate your indulgence and happy to answer any more questions.
SPEAKER1 - Well, thank you, Steve, and thanks for testifying.
BARRETT - This particular Bill does not limit the low carbon fuel standard to hard to decarbonize transportation sectors, it7724 doesn't7724 limit it to diesel either.7726 This seems to be an omnibus directive to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to implement a clean fuel standard that would be applicable to a gasoline for a conventional sedan and there's no provision here for limiting it to hard to the carbonize sectors like heavy vehicles.
DODGE - Well, I look at this as to transportation fuels, if I'm reading7760 it7760 correctly, and with any of these Bills like the Vermont Bill, which was only a clean heat standard, the devil is in the details, and it's really up to the regulatory agencies to come up with the details. This is a framework.
BARRETT - No, it's up to the legislature, this is not a detail, this is a major policy choice. It's true that things can get gnarly, we ask regulatory agencies to handle the tales of implementation, the legislature sets the policies, and we don't like to see the executive branch arrogate the legislative function. What we're talking about now is a major policy choice and that's whether to implement a low carbon fuel standard with respect to all manner of transportation. Isn't that the case?
DODGE - Yes, but I mean, Cab employees several hundred people just to implement the program, and I'm not suggesting we have to do that in Massachusetts, I would love to see this as a regional program and I would think this would be with the purview of NESCOM and their priorities are elsewhere the last couple of years. I think they did propose a similar program in addition to the cap and trade TCI program that Georgetown introduced, they did propose a low carbon fuel standard several years ago and it didn't fly for one reason or another. But, you know, these are very complicated programs and whether it's the legislature that designs the details or an agency, there are a lot of details that have to be worked out in order for these programs to work.
BARRETT - Okay. Why did Governor Patrick suspend the program?
DODGE - My recollection is there were concerns about costs and supplies at that time, and again, that was now what 13 years ago, so those concerns, I think, can be well addressed now and could have been years ago.
BARRETT - The cost and supplies issues included the question7885 about whether you were taking agricultural land out of food production, that was a very hot issue. I was not in the legislature in 2008, but I certainly remember the issue. There's no indication that the population of the world is stabilized and that, in fact, we know it hasn't and that agricultural land can now throw off not only enough food to feed people, but a huge surplus such that we could also populate this clean fuel standard across the state. Is there?
DODGE - Mr. Chairman, we're talking about waste feedstocks here, we're not talking about food for fuel, that's an issue on the ethanol side. But on the7933 biomass based diesel side, they are all7935 waste products, used cooking oil which restaurants you have to pay to get rid of. Now are being paid for it.
BARRETT - Well, don't get me wrong, Steve, I'm in favor of using waste products for something that's legitimately sustainable and it reduces emissions but I'm still questioning whether additives in gasoline is the way to go. Inevitably, our passing this at this stage years after California did would represent competition to the electrification of transportation. When California promulgated a low carbon fuel standard, EVs were not really the solution of the moment available to all. Now we're trying to push electrification and this is a throwback to the admixture of waste products with petroleum based gasoline. It seems like we missed this policy moment, possibly that was a good thing and that we're now out of sync with a move toward EVs. This would represent, as I say, competition with EVs as a practical matter, would it not?
DODGE - Again, I think you're mixing apples and oranges because you're talking about gasoline powered vehicles of which there is an alternative EVs, correct? But I'm really focusing on the hard to decarbonize section, which is medium and particularly heavy duty trucks, off road vehicles, tractors, farmer equipment, all that, that's where our focus is.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, Steve. That's not what thank you. And and I take your point. It's not what the bill provides for. The bill is overly broad then, but but I I take your point and we should think about policy issues, the you raise quite apart from the language of this particular proposal. So I I I that's an important distinction we'll try to keep in mind. Thank you. Good to see you again. You don't get any older.
SPEAKER12 - Either do you.
SPEAKER1 - I know 1 of us is lying. Thank you very much. Oh, Senator Patico, do you have a question?
SPEAKER3 - No.
PACHECO - I just wanted to just emphasize again, Mr. Chairman, that that's exactly what the Bill is focused on; it's the hard to decarbonize sectors, and that's why it sent the regulatory aspects, the regulatory agencies, to come up with a standard, and8094 quite frankly, I8096 was not the author of the Bill, but I would have rather had to stand to come back for us for approval. But the issue that I want to make sure I generate with you right now, and I think Steve's testimony proves it because it's the only time probably in the last 15 years or 20 years that we've been on the same side. So I am absolutely not for allowing our gas lines to be used and to continue to move forward fossil fuels, this is a way to expedite decarbonization and utilize some of these fuel sources that actually lessen carbon emissions, and that's8153 why the Biden administration, the UN, and the EU just signed an8159 agreement to reduce methane gases by 30%, and a big part of how that's going to happen is by actually fixing gas leaks in pipes everywhere and by moving forward in this particular way, structured with a clean fuel standard. Massachusetts should have had a clean fuel standard years ago, I grant it but it's not too late to have8190 a clean fuel standard. We should have on anyway, just to track where the fuels are and the mixes and where the fuels are coming from. A final point is I'm going to find you a couple of other MIT professors and I think one of the people that you may find very interesting is the8215 former secretary of of energy, so let me see after I talk with him this week what he has to say about it. Thank you.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, boy. I don't I dread that you and Ernie Moniz coming at me back cheered on by Steve Dodds. This is gonna be a a difficult moment for me. Thank you, though.
SPEAKER3 - That would certainly be an interesting That's real. That's for sure. But as you know, miss Chairman, you know, Steve and I have been on the opposite side based upon the fossil fuel industry. I was surprised to see him here testifying, nice to see him. I agree with you, he doesn't look any old, he looks it looks the same.
SPEAKER1 - I I agree. It's a strange bedfellows moment, but -- Yes. -- these things happen in life. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much, Steve. I appreciate it. k. Is Kevin O'Shea here from National Grid?
SPEAKER5 - I am here, Mister Chairman. Nice to see you.
SPEAKER1 - Hi, Kevin. How are you?8277 Good to have your testimony today.
SPEAKER5 - Yes.
KEVIN O'SHEA - NATIONAL GRID - HB 3218 - Thank you again, and thank you to members8281 of the committee. As you said, my name is Kevin O'Shea, I'm the director of Massachusetts government affairs and National Grid, and I'm here to testify in support of H 3218, an act to promote transportation electrification infrastructure. The Mass Clean energy and climate plan for 2030 sets out an ambitious goal to accelerate the uptake of zero emission vehicles, including having 750,000 new light duty vehicles on the road by 2035 and millions more by 2050. These goals cannot be achieved without rapid and strategic expansion of the public charging network in the Commonwealth. Fast charging corridors on highways is identified as a priority in Mass DOT's National Electric Legal Infrastructure or Nevi Plan. To help achieve the common goals, in 2022, the DPU approved National Grid's phase 3 electric vehicle proposal. This proposal is among the first of its kind in the northeast and will provide extensive make ready EV infrastructure through incentives and programs to enable nearly 32000 residential fleet public and workplace charging ports.
National Grid recently published a highway charging study in partnership with CALSTART, RMI, and other leading consultants that looked at the infrastructure8354 demands of highway charging in our region. We found that a traditional highway charging rest area like those currently providing gas to vehicles along the Mass pike would require the same level of electric infrastructure as Gillette stadium8367 or small town needs for a rest area. H 3218 addresses many of the hurdles to meeting the Commonwealth's EV adoption targets. The purpose of this legislation will enable EV adoption by creating public fast charging networks across the Commonwealth in a cost effective and efficient manner. Under this Bill, DOER, Mass DOT in consultation with8387 the electric distribution companies will develop a coordinated plan for8391 electric vehicle fast charging stations along major roadways and highways. Some key aspects of that plan will include DOER, Mass DOT, consulting with the EDCs, conducting a study within six months and a forecast of the electric demand on public highway he'd be charging out to 2045. Based on that forecast, those said agencies in consultation with EDC's, will both have six months to identify best sites for public electric fast vehicle charging hubs along or near highways and major roadways, taking into consideration ease of access for both passenger and commercial vehicles, cost effective and efficient use of the electric grid infrastructure and rights of away, land use feasibility, potential abilities to qualify for public funds, including, but not limited to, those funds made available under the federal infrastructure investment and jobs Act.
Within six months of the site identification, the EDCs would be required to submit plans to the DPU, detailing additional transmission and distribution system upgrades necessary to accommodate the charging network. If deemed reasonable by the DPU will be entitled to build that infrastructure. To ensure we meet the Commonwealth's goals and net zero require a monumental transition to electric vehicles. To ensure that transition is successful, we must make sure the infrastructure backbone supporting charging is in place before the cars hit the road. That is why we respectfully request the committee report 3218 favorably. Thank you for your time, and, Mr. Chairman, I know in a previous question to another panelist, you had brought up the ownership of the resulting charging port, I do not believe it's the intent of the legislation, nor, I can only speak for National Grid, it is not the intent of National Grid to use this legislation to own the end use charging ports, simply to be able to build the infrastructure necessary for those ports to be installed.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, and8508 and thank you very much, Kevin. I
BARRETT - I think I may have miss spoken with respect to H 3218, Representative Roy's Bill. It's not clear to me that it provides for utility ownership either, I think though that language would have to be added to clarify the point.
O'SHEA - Sure, we're supportive of that. You know, our intent with anticipatory investment is always to ensure that the infrastructure is there for the end use customer and very rarely do we to be the end use customer and not in this case.
BARRETT - The reason I have some misgivings though is because if the planning process is entirely in the hands of the utilities, it's not clear to me that the locations identified would strike the right balance. They should be close to your infrastructure without a doubt but there probably are additional considerations and perspectives that would be supplied by the charger installers themselves. I'm just have some misgivings about the sole assignment of responsibility to the electric distribution companies.
O'SHEA -8585 Yes, it's my understanding from the translation that the designation of where that infrastructure will be built would actually be on the onus of Mass DOT and DOER, EDCs would simply receive that information from them, You know, they would say, we would like additional charging our route two for instance, in this area and the electric distribution company that serves the area identified by those two organizations would then submit a plan to those agencies in the DPU for the infrastructure necessary to build out their forecasted load. So we would simply be responding to the determination by DOER and Mass DOT.
BARRETT - Thank8632 you. Let me quote to you the language though in the8634 current Bill; within six months of and based on the 2045 electric charging demand determined, the Department of Energy Resources, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and the electric distribution company shall identify optimal sites. It could be that the government would assume most of the responsibility and channel all the other interests that might be touched upon or alternatively because of resource issues It could be that the one set of private sector actors given co responsibility, that would be you folks would have a disproportionate effect on the choice of sites. It's hard to know when the three entities identified DOER, Mass DOT and the electric distribution companies whether all the considerations that might be taken into account will be taken into account.
O'SHEA - Sure, and we're happy to work with you, Senator on that point. I think the kind of co leveling of the three entities is in recognition of the EDC's kind of intimate knowledge of the infrastructure necessary in each part of our service territories to build. I think if it's one rest off versus another, we might be able to tell you that it would cost less than the faster to upgrade a mile down the road at the rest stop than the one they may have initially thought of, but I take your point, and I'm very amenable to working with the committee and yourself to clarify language accordingly.
BARRETT - I'm quoting from a March 29th 2023 article in a trade publication put out by political called Energy Wire, the title of this particular treatment is why America's EV chargers keep breaking. The answer tends to be multifaceted, but it seems as if the EV charging infrastructure in Massachusetts currently along the pipe, for example, is always broken. So how does this particular study address this persistent question of operability and quality control?
O'SHEA - Sure. You know, I have not read that article in question, so I can't comment directly on what it finds. I will say that the charging infrastructure that is built out now is built on the current regulatory paradigm where they come to us or the electric distribution company servicing let's say, the rest stop along the pipe as you referenced, and we build it out to spec for exactly what they need, this would allow us to forecast in the future to what the kind of peak demand would be for EV charging and be able to right size our systems to accommodate that. I'm not sure if the article makes a determination on if it's an infrastructure back issue or if it's an equipment, you know, the actual charger itself versus the distribution and or transmission system having not read the article. But it is our hope that if this legislation were to be enacted, it would allow us to ensure that when the transition happens in the next 10, 15 plus years, and that the additional charging infrastructure has to be built out quickly at these rest areas and the like that the infrastructure on the utility side would already be there ready and able to be plugged in.
BARRETT - It seems that when you go through these detailed analyses of why so many chargers don't work, that the likely solution is multifaceted, and so I assume that as we seek to address the problems, you would not object to a Bill in which site identification was part of the exercise, but by no means the sole part, right? It seems as if many other steps would have to be taken before EV charging infrastructure delivered value consistently?
O'SHEA - Sure. And As I mentioned, I think it's about being ready, and I think the process for getting ready for the future is multifaceted, So we're happy to work with that. I will note that the New York legislative session just completed and towards the end of their session, they passed a very similar Bill to this that allows a similar consideration of where EV charging load will be necessary. So National Grid operates in New York as well, We're excited to see that and hope that we can take those lessons learned as well. You know, they'll now be slightly ahead of us in this effort, and should this Bill be enacted, we can help, you know, bring those lessons learned from that process here to Massachusetts as well.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
That sounds good. That Thank you very much, and and it's a serious proposal, h 3218, and and certainly, the senate will8958 take it seriously. Thank you, Mister Kenneth. -- testimony today.
SPEAKER5 - Thank you as always.
SPEAKER1 - And our last test our last witness on the list is Galen Mook,
Good to see you, Gaylyn.
SPEAKER9 - Nice. How are you?
SPEAKER1 - Good. Good. How are you? Doing good.
SPEAKER9 - Alright. So we are doing double duty today. So, like, you're honest. Oh, you've
SPEAKER1 - been very patient. I appreciate it. Love your lapel pen. Oh, thank you.
SPEAKER9 - Ali Victoria on the way out. Alright.
GALEN MOOK - MASS BIKE - HB 3145 - Chairman, thank you so much, Vice Chair Pacheco, glad to have you on8992 the virtual as well and all the members of the TUE. My name is Galen Mook, I'm the executive director of the8998 Massachusetts bicycle coalition, also known as Mass Bike. We are a statewide nonprofit that been advocating for improved bicycling for everyone across Massachusetts since 1977. Along those lines, I respectfully submit this testimony in support of H 3145, this is an act expanding community access to electric bicycles. I'd first like to thank Rep Blais for her work to bring sustainable and equitable active transportation to not just her constituents in the district, but to everyone across the Commonwealth, and I'm also encouraged by the work of this legislature in this past session, you all did some amazing work, you defined electric bicycles, you passed an act to reduce traffic fatalities and you really took seriously the means to promote bicycling as a viable form of safe transportation.
We at Mass Bike are cheerleaders of those efforts and we also support the chambers and the administration in their efforts to expand safer cycling infrastructure, including the pathways, such as Bruce Freeman rail trail and the Mass Central rail trail and others and to really build safe bicycling infrastructure throughout the entire Commonwealth. Members of the committee may not be aware, but we were awarded the number one bike friendly state in the nation last year from the League of American bicyclists. Well, it's in no small part to the work done by you and the committee and the members in the chamber. So we are all riding with some tailwinds right now, however, we do have more work to do to help more people ride more bikes more often. So I'm here to talk a little bit about this Bill, which we also see as a promotion of electric bicycles as a means to tackle two of the existential crises we're facing in the Commonwealth;9107 choking congestion on our roadways, and the greenhouse gases emitted through our9113 transportation sector.
So this Bill really does help that by providing access to electric bicycles through expanding programs that are already in place, and really scaling them up to be statewide. So I'll talk a little on those programs. For the past year, Mass bike has been working with the Clean Energy Center, the CEC, which is the State Economic Development Agency dedicated to accelerating the growth of clean energy sector. We are one of five grantees as an organization to provide electric bicycles to low and moderate income residents across the state as part of their accelerating clean transportation for all pilot program. So our program is in the City of Worcester, we are distributing 100 E-bikes to low and moderate income residents, as I mentioned, who depend on them for their daily transportation needs, and we are counting miles and trips taken by these riders. To date since last August, based on EPA calculator, our Worcester riders have displaced over £14,000 of greenhouse gases by choosing to ride E-bikes instead of taking automobiles and other internal combustion engine such as the bus.
A similar program on the Cape, which is run by the Cape Light compact reports that9189 through their surveying of 69% of their 157 E-bike voucher recipients so far so that E-bikes are offsetting vehicle miles. So we've already got this pilot program rolling in the state. It's successful. and these programs do show real promise for E-bikes to take the place of car trips, and they can be scaled up to a statewide effort, which is what this Bill aims to do. This Bill will also9213 support electric bicycle share programs through funding. 40 years, Mass bike has been following stories9219 from comparable bike share program in places around the world like Citi bike in New York City, Valeed in Paris, where they are seeing electric bicycle trips account for nearly 2/3 of their system trips even though the E-bikes make up only a small fraction of the system, which does seem intuitive since E-bikes allow riders to travel further go longer distances, go over tougher terrain and to expend less energy, and fun fact, it's actually how I arrived at the state house today.
BARRETT - Where'd you come from?
MOOK - Well, from Alston, so it's relatively flat until I get to Beacon Hill, so I was able to tackle it in this suit, no problem, so that's my little plug for you there. But, you know, we know that given the choice, the average rider will choose E-bikes over normal bikes, so that's our encouragement. We also know that in Boston's at least the regional Blue bike system, the demand is high for E-bike inclusion, but the program has stalled mainly because the costs associated with including E-bike into bike sharing fleets is prohibitive for municipalities, and that would potentially be passed on to the costs for riders. So there's real hesitation there and a cautionary tale which is playing out currently this year is in the Connecticut River Valley with the Valley bike, it was Massachusetts's first E-bike share system, it was a regional bike share system in the Connecticut River Valley started in 2018 but has now shut down due to financial constraints of the operator. So we have empty, docks in Holyoke mainly due to financial constraints.9314
So H 3145 can provide a lifeline for these public transportation systems, allowing them to evolve and expand. Of course, along9323 with helping alleviate traffic congestion and greenhouse gases, we all know the innumerable benefits to bicycling, how biking lowers health risks, biking raises mental wellness, creates connections to community, natural environment, saves dollars for pocketbooks, we all know the benefits. However, E-bikes, though they are great for older adults because they allow for mobility challenges to be overcome, and they allow for people to travel further distances to do their day to day, they are expensive, they are cost prohibitive especially for those on fixed income and those who have financial constraints. So this Bill attempts to tackle that and we know that the demand is high just a small fact of our 100 bikes in Worcester, we received over 1200 applicants in the city alone.
So we know that this is scalable, and we know that what is working in Worcester could easily work in Fitchburg, could easily work in Sudbury, could easily work in rural communities across the whole Commonwealth. So this is the goal of this Bill is to take what's already working and to scale it up. Of course, with all the Bills that you're tackling today, definitely put in the hard effort of changing the system wide electrification, the system wide gas channeling, but this is something that we could do today, this is something that we could do tomorrow, this is something that we could do in an hour if we are able to act quickly as a Commonwealth. We know it's not going to be the solution, but we know it is a solution to tackle some of the biggest challenges that we were facing. So I respectfully ask that this committee report favorably and work with their counterparts in the chamber to move forward H 3145, and I'm happy to answer any questions around the pilot program and what we're asking to scaling up.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, thank you, Galen, very much. I want you to know that the the texting I always do while you were had to do with some research I was doing on your idea. Oh, great. It wasn't that I was distracted. It's alright. I wanted to see where the section 11 j of chapter 25 a would fit in. and whether there was anything else on e bikes in chapter 25 A. So far as I can tell, there isn't. I don't believe so. And so, that leads to some
BARRETT - So, for example, they're apparently in state law today is no definition of electric bike.
MOOK - Actually, not to correct too much, but in the transportation Bond Bill that was last session, we did amend the Chapter 90 to include class ones and class twos of E-bikes based off federal designation. So it's basically bikes that can go up to 20 miles an hour, either by pedal assist or by throttle, that is the class definition.
BARRETT - Okay. Now, is that a part of a permanent state law, or is that limited and governs only the bonding activity set by the the Bill in question. I don't know, in other words, this is just a small point, but if we're going to have a standing statue, as opposed to a general law as opposed to a special law, we might need to put some definitions elsewhere. Here's my question and the reason I'm interested in your testimony today. My district includes the minuteman rail trail, I call it the minute person rail trail, but that's just me and includes the Bruce Freeman rail trail also, and I wear a Bruce Freeman hat whenever I'm not wearing a suit just to give it a little advertising, it runs through Chumps wood, which is in my district all the way through Carlisle and Concord to Sudbury and eventually to Framingham as you know. So there's more and more complaints coming about ingestion on these railroads, they are very popular and there are a lot of bicyclists who's caused you've espoused over the years, regular bicyclists. My wife rides a bike 8 miles every day from our home near the minute person rail trail down to Airways and she takes her bike 8 miles back at the end of the day. She works here in Downtown Boston and she is alarmed by the speed at which E-bikes travel. She's not merely talking about class 3, which I think is that, maybe I've got my categories mixed up, but the species of bike that would go over 20 but basically, this is scary for her. She rides, she doesn't wear spandex, she rides in an upright and there are kids in trams on these bike trails, there are lots of people taking their morning evening constitutions and then there are E-bike riders zipping along. She's really worried about the increasing adoption of E-bikes for commutes, long distance commutes, and the speed at which they9638 travel. Would you be and I I9640 know class 1 and9642 2s, in theory only permit bikes going up to 20, but what do you think about amending a Bill like this to include the ability of local municipalities to set speed limits below 20, for example.
MOOK - Wonderful that you bring that up. That was included in the language in the Chapter 90 amendments with the electric bicycles9664 specifically related towards multi use pathways. So a jurisdiction now has the formal ability to set designated speed limits.
BARRETT - Not that anyone would enforce them, they're essentially unenforced. You'd have to put a cap on the rail trail.
MOOK - I view it as an education tool, but it formalizes what has already been informalized. For instance, Sun found shining sea bikeway, they have a 15 mile an hour speed limit, but it's always been advisory up until the law changed last year. So they could, in theory, enforce. Of course, Mass Bike as a philosophy tries to lend itself not to enforcement, but rather through education or design solutions. But I agree with you that specifically the minuteman too, which I believe is one of the most heavily used rail trails in the whole country, it is a commuter bikeway at its onset, but it's not a commuter bikeway, it is a community pathway and we need to treat it as such. Part of why I'm excited about E-bikes being treated as real solutions and promoted by the state, part of which is to define them is that they can now be included in design considerations. I know for instance that the Freeman rail trail and especially the extension which will continue is only 10 feet wide but the right of way goes well beyond 10 feet. So my ask to the EEA and DOT, and the trails team is why 10 feet? Is it a financial constraint? Is it a design consideration? And we're seeing the same in the Northern Strand Trail, which is Lynn to Everett and if they get the bridge across the mystic, that I think will maybe even rival the minute man in its at least the density of population that it serves. But, again, the design is only 10 feet. So I think, you know, we are lagging a little bit, unfortunately, I think that some of the and this is total aside from what we're really pursuing with this Bill, but my own personal feeling is that if we start to take seriously the other modes that will be sharing these pathways, we will need to do more than just design a pathway that accommodates two people walking side by side and a single by sequence to race because that is how they do the standard today.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I see. Well, it is it is getting I I I spend a lot of time on the minute person rail trail myself. Yep. and it's scary to be a pedestrian to be walking. Mhmm.
SPEAKER9 - Yeah. And and
MOOK - My quick solution to act today and what Mass bike working with Peggy and Susan and others in Lexington, the idea of education through signage, education through marketing and messaging, education through classes, and clinics, really it's a cultural shift that we're trying to seek. I do know that I mean, sadly, the aftermath of the fatal crash on the minute man, which involves road biking, we take this very seriously at Mass bike, and we do know that the dangers are real and it is of the highest concern when you elevate it to that level. But then also we want to make sure that these pathways are welcoming and that our roadways are welcoming and that our our our public ways are welcoming enough so that a child can go, an elderly person can go, a wheelchair can go as well as a cyclist. So we have ways to go, I do agree.
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay. Well, thank you in any event for for your testimony in this interesting bill. Sure. Yeah. And thank you for your patience in waiting so long to speak. No.
SPEAKER9 - I appreciate the opportunity, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness of this. And I know that it's it's important to your constituents. I hear her. It is. A lot from what's going on at the Bruce Raymond. But, you know, the point is the
SPEAKER1 - We've been overrule too, my wife and I, before it was legal. But we did we took our bikes over there anyway.
SPEAKER9 - Yeah. Well, I I'm still waiting for the ribbon cutting in full, but maybe I'll see you there.
SPEAKER1 - Okay. Good to see you again. Thank you, chairman. Appreciate the time.
Anyone else wish to testify today? If not, we'll declare I'm sorry. Anyone wish at home wishing to testify?
Thank goodness. Well, we will we will declare this hearing9920 closed. Thank you.
© InstaTrac 2025