2023-10-12 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
2023-10-12 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
REP BARRETT - Like that. We had several communities out, especially in my district. They6 were members of aggregation and had aggregation plans, it seems as though, it would take up to three billing cycles for someone who would be going with the main supplier and wanted to go for those that were providing the aggregation. Three billing cycles last year was quite a bit of money. For instance, National Grid was at 33¢, and, the aggregation for the Berkshire area out here was in the area of 9¢. So losing that amount of money and time to get them transferred over for whatever reason, would require the DPU to set forth a policy basically saying that they must do it within 30 days. An aggregation system, whether it be their own or one that's located, the purchase has its own. There are other communities that have set up their own, and when it is submitted to the DPU at the present time, they have up to 18 months to make a decision as70 to whether this aggregation72 system can be set up into a community.
We have76 one community, the town of78 Windsor out here that submitted an application, I believe, last February, March, a year ago. It's nearly 18 months now And they still have not made a decision as to whether they can set up the aggregation system that they have proposed. Obviously, that cost them a lot of money and the consumers there too. I think these are two good bills, that I'm talking about today, but especially this one from municipal aggregation and third-party suppliers. I would ask that the committee give favorable consideration to it or join it together with any other present legislation or not present legislation, submitted legislation to the committee. Thank you, and I'd be glad to answer any questions.
REP ROY - COMMITTEE CHAIR - Let me see if there are any questions from the panel that's here. Any questions from our, members who are participating remotely? Seeing none. I thank you for your, testimony. What I neglected142 to do at the beginning is introduce the members who are here with us and, in the147 room with us as the vice chair, Representative Hagerty, and Representative Moschino, and, with us online Representative Howett, Representative Owens, and Representative Souza. As his people continue to join us, for the here I will introduce them at that time. Our next, group to testify is a panel with, representative,174 Tom Potolo. It's Shelley Dine, Patrick Roche, and Larry Creshen. Folks, the floor is yours, and we'd love to hear from you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER3 - While my panel's approaching, could I just clarify? Are we talking imperial minutes or metric minutes?
SPEAKER2 - We are talking whatever.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - You're gonna show us with 3 minutes is off. I'll show
REP VITOLO - HB 3852 - You less than three as I always do. Excellent. Thank you, chair206 Roy, Vice Chair Haggerty, and committee members, for allowing me to speak today and for taking me out of turn. I am here to testify on HB 3852 and act in supporting electrical load aggregation programs in the Commonwealth. We found that municipalities were running into several problems when trying to create a new community choice aggregation program. We also found it difficult for municipalities to make modest changes to existing CCA programs and almost impossible to make significant changes. In the process243 of creating this bill, we convene municipalities who wanna start247 community choice aggregation programs249 like Quincy Malden And Springfield.252 Municipalities252 who want to improve their existing254 community choice aggregation256 programs like the Cape Light Compact communities. The city of Boston and Tewkesbury, and aggregators like Paragon Group, Good Energy, and Colonial. We, over many months, beginning mid-last year worked to draft a bill to help fix these issues. We took the opportunity to clean up, clarify, and make consistent
The language from the late 1990s it matches modern vocabulary and DPU philosophy. We solved the problem of communities trying to create their own CCA program first and foremost by giving DPU a clear and specific timeline by which they must approve or explain their lack of approval for the applicant communities. Under this Bill, some small changes to existing community choice aggregation programs can be made without a DPU hearing. The explicit timeline that's so important for new programs It's also important for communities that want to innovate with load management,318 electric vehicle charging, photovoltaics, time of use pricing, and so forth because a clear timeline reassures communities that their innovation will be met at the appropriate pace of schedule.
We recognize that there are existing important problems that relate to retail choice and investor-owned utility, energy, and capacity procurement. This Bill focuses solely on improving community choice aggregation. We believe that we have successfully balanced streamlining bureaucracy with maintaining consumer protection through the DPU. I would now like to hand it over to Shelley Dean, the Energy And Sustainability Director for the city of Quincy to provide a bit more detail for this Bill. I look forward to working with committee members and the chairs on improving community371 choice aggregation in the commonwealth this session. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you. Alright. Shelley, all yours.
SHELLEY DEAN - CITY OF QUINCY - HB 3852 - Thank you. My name is Shelley Dean. I'm the energy and sustainability director for the city of Quincy, and I'm speaking on behalf of the residents, the mayor, and the city council. We wanna offer our strong support for HB 3852, as representative Ritola mentioned, Quincy is a community that has been waiting for a long time for our plan to be approved by the DPU. We believe that this plan, this, bill will help communities like ours that have been waiting for as well as communities that are waiting to make minor modifications. Quincy's plan has been before the DPU for 32 months and waiting and counting During that time, we've experienced extremely high electricity prices, 33.9¢, per kilowatt hour because we're a part of National Grid's basic service, and we haven't benefited from clean higher clean energy. Quincy's residents have, as a result, been tempted to join enticing, but deceptive competitive supply contracts.
We have the unfortunate distinction of being among the top 10 communities in Massachusetts that have been paying the highest amount and have experienced the highest losses, I'm sorry, for our joint and competitive supply contracts. Their rates have typically been higher than basic service. Quincy's plan is virtually identical to any plans that have already been approved by the DPU. We offer a few options. We offer consumer protections. Despite that, we've been waiting for more than two and a half years. DPU has recently486 filed a plan to address some of these issues, but that's inadequate. Because Quincy's plan, for example, offers multiple options for our residents, we wouldn't qualify for an expedited review. We'd have to either modify or plan and start all over or not qualify for an expedited review. Also, minor changes would any minor510 changes we wanna make in the future would also require DPU approval. That's really what's creating516 the backlog at DP U. We believe that this bill provides an appropriate amount of DPU oversight without being burdensome. So I want to thank you and the committee, for listening to Quincy's concerns and taking them seriously. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you.
Larry's next. Alright.
LARRY KRISHEN - NON-PROFIT GREEN ENERGY CONSUMERS ALLIANCE - HB 3852 - Thank you, Mr Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Larry Krishen. I'm the executive director of the non-profit Green Energy Consumers Alliance, supporting this Bill 3852. At a high level, the Department of Public Utilities needs to treat aggregation plans553 with the respect that they deserve given the track record of that aggregation brought to the Commonwealth. Within the next few weeks, it's overdue. My organization is going to release a report detailing the benefits that municipal aggregations have brought to the wealthy. First, we estimated that the renewable energy content, class 1 content, that has been, brought to the state, above and beyond the renewable portfolio standard through the580 voluntary choices of communities and members of the aggregations has brought in about 1,000,000 more megawatt hours of class 1 power onto the grid, a significant expansion for Massachusetts and592 it does so without any state subsidy whatsoever.594 This is essentially through managed596 competition. Aggregation in my viewpoint is the most cost-effective program available that the state has, to reduce emissions, to achieve our clean energy and climate plan. No subsidy whatsoever. Second, we followed a cohort of 32 aggregations over 6 years, that have 5 to 11% more class 1, renewable energy than required by law, above the RPS.620
That cohort has saved an average of 3.3¢ per kilowatt hour or about $200 per year for the average household compared to utility basic service. Now basic service is offered by a national grid and Eversource changes every 6 months. So over 6 years, basic service changed 12 times. We looked at National Greater Eversource and found that in 83% of those 6-month intervals, the aggregation was cheaper. These greener aggregations were cheaper 83% of the time the 17% of653 the time's basic service was cheaper. It wasn't by much. 3rd,657 the attorney general's office has shown me definitively that consumers who choose a retail competitive supplier rather than basic service or aggregation are getting ripped off. They've done 4 studies It's over half a $1,000,000,000.
The amount of abuse is staggering, especially when you see673 the data on how many are low-income families, and people of color. They're disproportionately abused. That's who the target is of the competitive suppliers. So despite all this, the DPU has failed to do its job. The guidelines. I agree with Shelley. They just don't get us to where we need to be. There needs to be legislation. In reviewing the plans, the DPU is driving up if you will, the opportunity cost of aggregation,697 because of the699 questions that they ask, and the manner in which they ask,701 it's burdensome, its own onerous. I really often don't get the point. I really don't think the DPU understands the benefits aggregation. So for all these reasons, chapter 164, section 134, needs a serious overhaul. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you so much. Thank you. And, Patrick, get to round it out.
PATRICK ROACH - GOOD ENERGY - HB 3852 - Excellent. Great. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Patrick Roche. I'm with Good Energy. We are a consultant to municipal aggregation programs and dozens729 more in the state. So, the multi-year delays for aggregation plans by the DPU are well known. This Bill HB 3852 would address this in two ways. As we've heard, it would put a deadline on GPU to rule on a plan, which doesn't exist today. But I want to go a little deeper to talk about how it would get at the true source of the backlog.746 So their current requirement is that nearly all implementation details get included in a plan. DPU's approach, forces MENIS abilities to rigidly lock in implementation details well before the759 program is active. Those implementation details might be things like how many products will you offer. What exactly will their renewable energy levels be? How exactly will you communicate with customers? Municipalities really need773 the ability to adjust those implementation details in a timely manner.
So this could be to react based on the pricing you actually received during the bid, how to adjust your renewable energy levels based on where the prices came in, or maybe your select board took a vote to add a new optional product and you wanna do that in the upcoming bid. But really under the way the GPU, regulates today, that ability doesn't exist because you have to get their pre-approval via a plan amendment. So there it800 just really stifles innovation, to be able to react to either your804 community or what the market needs. Of course, putting all that detail on a plan creates really huge plans that are bulky and take a long time to review, and it sets DPU up kind of a never-ending backlog because we have, you know, 170 communities with aggregations. If they all wanted to make a really simple change, they'd have to file each one would have to file an amendment that would have to826 get reviewed and approved. So, that's kind of the sort of untenable current situation.
What this Bill would do would clarify that an aggregation plan has to contain only the structural elements of a program. So how the municipality is going to organize and manage its program and how it will make decisions? Then it expressly allows the capality to make local decisions about its implementation details within that framework and without needing to go back to DPU for approval. It's important to stress that this Bill does not reduce DPU's ability to have oversight over861 aggregations. It codifies DPU's ability to make requirements for all aggregations following the standard rulemaking process, and it would also preserve the requirement that aggregations do an annual report. So I think that,877 as others have said, you know, the DeepU has opened this regulatory proceeding. We're glad we like the goal that it has to put all the rules in one place. They do want to speed up the process, but by trying to codify their current approach, we think it really won't actually address the backlog and continues to preempt municipal decision-making. Alright.
ROY - I just have a few questions and then I'll open it up to the rest of the panel. First of all, when is your report going to be done?
LARRY - No later than November 14th. That's all. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Later than November.
SPEAKER5 - That's our fall meeting. So we we gotta launch it there, if not before.
SPEAKER2 - Excellent. Alright. We look forward to seeing that.
SPEAKER5 - I'll send you the executive summary, though. Probably later today.
ROY - Great. Thank you. I know that DPU has made some changes to the program, and you outlined a few of the issues. But, did you cover all of the issues you have with, what they've done? Or are there any other lingering things out there that you'd like to call to our attention?
VITOLO - In an effort to make sure that we are clear we can send you the complete list in writing so that there are no mistakes. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Excellent. Even better. Alright. Any other questions? Rep Messino?
REP MESCHINO - Thank you so much. So I just wanted to959 go back to your testimony and you were talking about, the amendment process. Are963 you talking about the memo process before it's approved, which I can just speak to from personal experience that, Cohasset, Scituate, and Marshall really struggled with or you're talking about after, as you want to, adapt to how residents are using it or both?
ROACH - Thank you. I was mostly talking about after approval when you've when you want to adapt your program. Okay.
MESCHINO - Then the other992 question I had was, so I994 know APU is open to the docket to examine all this. Did they ever put out? I don't ever remember seeing you referenced that, but is there actually a report and the existing changes that they're recommending, or are they still considering them? I just wasn't sure where they were in that process.
ROACH - Sure. They opened up1011 the docket. It's, number 23 37, it was opened, I think, in August. So there's no clear end date for that. They've they were in the comment period. We had initial comments, reply comments are upcoming. So, we're hoping they'll convene a technical session to talk to everyone in the room together. So with that proposal, there is a, they propose something called, like, the guidelines, which would sort of be trying to put all their requirements for aggregations in one place, which is a big improvement over the current situation. They also have a template plan that they, as Shelley alluded to with expedited review, their guidelines are suggesting. If your plan follows this template, then you could be eligible for a faster review. But I think one of the challenges there is it kind of is sort of forcing everyone. Like, if you wanna1066 be fast, cookie cutter and it which then I think also doesn't really help this idea of what your community wants to do.
MESCHINO - It does seem to fly in the face of consumer protection, Rit La right, because you're not necessarily being responsive to the the community's needs in particular. Okay.
VITOLO - I would just add based on the DPU's pace of approving community choice aggregation programs. We might not see a resolution of that docket until 2026.1093 SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER8 - Got it. Okay. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER2 - Alright. Any other questions? Any of our, members online have any questions? Seeing1106 done. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER3 - Thank you for your1108 time.
SPEAKER2 - Next, I1112 understand that, representative Cataldo is ready to testify virtually. And if so, floor is US rep Cataldo.
REP CATALDO - HB 3150 - Good morning. Chair Roy, vice chair, Haggerty, members of the committee. Thank you so much for this opportunity to testify on house 3150. Thank you for taking me out of turn. This committee addressed so many aspects of our path to net 0 in the climate roadmap bill last session, and I commend this committee for implementing admission standards to municipal life plants as part of that nation-leading effort. This bill is intended to build upon that achievement by bringing municipal life plants in line with the same clean energy standards. Most importantly, the RPS standard and the clean peak standard as investor-owned utilities are subjected to. There are several reasons why this bill is fair, sensible, and officially supported by over 30 Massachusetts Climate organizations. Including the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the Sierra Club, the Conservation Law Foundation, And the Mass Climate Action Network with whom I work closely on this bill and what bank for their collaboration.
First, we know this is doable because several MLPs in the commonwealth are keeping up with or beating investor-owned utilities. Right now on clean energy, including Wellesley, Belmont, and Concord. Second, MLPs as a whole are lagging significantly behind investor-owned utilities when it comes to clean energy the analysis of 2020 data, which is the most recent that I have available found that while the rest of the state was required to have about 16% clean energy MLPs had less than 3% on average, and I think that MLP should be1206 required to enter the market for recs at the same pace as everyone else. Third, this dichotomy is backward from an equity perspective. MOP's community, like the one I represent in Concord. By the way, we love our municipal life plan. It's approaching it, celebrating its 125th year anniversary. Are significantly wealthier and less diverse on average than MLPs to the clean peak standard, which can result in harmful decisions in needing, peak demand, such as the new $85,000,000 oil and gas facility being built in Peabody.
I just want to end by noting that, had multiple conversations with my friends at ENE who represent MLPs and made several changes to the language of this bill as a result of those conversations, and we weren't able to come to to an agreement on a compromise bill.1255 You know, I just acknowledge that representatives from MLPs work collaboratively with this committee, as part of the roadmap bill, and many1263 MLPs are happy with the result. I expect that. But at the end of the day, we need to find a way to make sure everyone participates in the shared obligations and benefits of a green economy and a planet that my kids and yours can enjoy logging into the future. One piece of that requires the MLPs to pull their weight and keep up with the other 80 per 7% of the Commonwealth so this Bill is results-oriented. It helps us get where we ought to be in my view, and I respectfully urge you to give a strong consideration so much, and I'll do my best to answer any questions you may have. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the panel? Any questions from our online panelists. Seeing none, I thank you for your testimony. And at this time
SPEAKER9 - you, Mister Jeremy.
SPEAKER2 - You. You have a great day. And this time, call on, representative Mike Kushmerich, who I understand is out in virtual land. Rep Kushmerich, all yours?
REP KUSHMEREK - HB 3184 - Generally, thank you so much, honorable members, of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. Thank you for taking me out of turn here today to speak, to HB 3184 in acts, to1334 enhance municipal choice and provide affordable electricity options. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you you and I have met and spoken about this Bill in the past. As you know, Fitchburg, Bloomberg, Ashby, and Townsend, formed the entirety of Unitil's catchment area in Massachusetts, those four municipalities each pay the highest electric rates, in the entire commonwealth and have, for the better part of two decades, the electric rates, are continuing, to1366 grow and expand and are outpacing their other investor-owned competitors. As a result, we're we expect, in the next, several months that electric rates will, the average electric bill increase by more than 45 dollars, for for the represent, for the the communities that I represent.
While each of these municipalities has expressed over the past two decades, a genuine desire, to explore and create a municipal light plant. Unisil has often reminded them that they have the ability, and will exercise, a veto of any transaction, should the municipalities bring forth a proposal to buy a fair value of their infrastructure that would allow them to form such municipal light plants. So, the the bill laid out, before you, would would essentially do two things. First, it would eliminate, the ability of an investor-owned utility to exercise a veto if a fair market value is offered for their electrical infrastructure and to create a more streamlined approach, to the municipal acquisition of, investor-owned utility infrastructure. Certainly look forward to working with you, on your committee, to explore this further. Answer any questions that you might have. With that, I'd humbly request your consideration and favorable report out of this committee. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you for your testimony, are there any questions from the panel, either present here or online?
I see none. Thank you very much for your testimony, and we'll see you soon.
SPEAKER10 - Thank you, Mister Chairman.
SPEAKER2 - Take care. Next have another panel, and, this panel includes Adrian Nunez, Andy Hoglund, Jeremy Mossette, and Jeff Colby.
And, before you start, just to let you know that, representative Lipigarabedian has joined us online. So and in UI here in person and the rest of your folks are, virtual. So, you can kick it off.
SPEAKER7 - Okay.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you, Cherilyn. Want, 1 of your others to do it.
SPEAKER7 - But, look
SPEAKER2 - at I'm
ADRIAN NUNEZ - MASSACHUSETTS MUNIPAL ASSOCIATION - SB 2107 - HB 3156 - Alright. I'll kick things off. Thank you very much. Cherry, members of the committee, we appreciate the opportunity to provide some input today on the legislation that you are, reviewing. My name is Adrienne Nunez. I am a legislative analyst at the Massachusetts Municipal Association. I am joined by three municipal officials virtually. We're all here today on behalf of Resideo Town across the commonwealth. To express our strong support for Senate 2107 and House 3156. Act relative to municipal authority in the public rights of way. This legislation is a tool to remedy the issue of abandoned decommissioned utility polls. Commonly referred to as double pulls. assuming you're familiar with double pulls. think you know what they are. So utility companies, as you know, are required to remove these pulls within 90 days. However, that often does not occur.
These double pulls cause considerable challenges for municipalities across the commonwealth. This is a really big problem in almost every community. The Bills before you would allow municipalities the authorities to move the decommissioned polls, bill for the removal, and also assess fees. You'll hear today about, you know, what this looks like on the ground. The safety and accessibility risks that are created, delays with construction projects, and diminished confidence in government. If enacted, this legislation would provide leverage to cities and towns to ensure that utility companies follow through with their statutory obligation to remove these pulls in a timely fashion. That's about it. I'll introduce our panelists. Together, we have three municipal officials that together have over 60 years of experience in municipal government. We're we are joined by Jeff Colby, who is a registered engineer and public works director of the town of Yarmouth. As well, as Jeremy Marsett, who is an engineer and the town administrator at the town board. Also, Andy Hogland is the fourth-term select board member in Williamstown and the president of the Massachusetts Select Board Association. With your permission chair, we'd like to start off with Jeff Colby. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - That sounds great. Super. Jeff, all yours.
JEFF COLBY - COUNTY YARMOUTH - Alright. Thank you, chair, Roy, and the members having the opportunity to share details about the County Yarmouth of the committee is very much appreciated. The town of Yarmouth currently has dozens of unremoved double poles, many in existence for more than six months, and several polls have been unremoved for well over a year. This is not unique to Yarmouth. There's every community that I discussed this issue with has the same challenge of these unremoved double poles. The proposed legislation is a great opportunity for communities to have another tool in the toolbox. To help address the challenges of these double poles. Double poles present safety issues as many times they're left within the roadways and sidewalks as part of our projects are separately for long periods of time. This legislation will provide a powerful project management tool that would further incentivize utility companies to remove these old utility poles that are delaying the advancement of critical infrastructure projects in all of our communities.
Utility pole removal as part of project management has always been kind of a difficult component. But recently, utility companies have been requiring payments in order to move and remove utility poles in a timely fashion. An example of this is a payment that was required of Yarmouth for the recent partners of our bridge project in which we've paid several $100,000 to utility companies and still these double pulls remained for an extended period of time, and delayed project completion. This legislation will save communities money as utility companies will now be incentivized to remove those double utility poles. If the double poles are not removed in a timely fashion, communities would then be empowered to act and have those poles removed. This would allow projects to continue to move projects forward and avoid costly delays. As you all know, time is money, and money saved means that communities can complete more projects. I'm a member of the executive board for both the Massachusetts Highway Association and my local Barnesville County Public Works Association, and1775 both organizations support this proposed double poll legislation, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Great. We'll hold the questions until the, full panel has testified. So who is next?
SPEAKER11 - Next up is Jeremy Marsett.
SPEAKER2 - Jeremy, all yours. Thank you.
JEREMY MARSETTE - TOWN OF CHEVRON - Thank you, Cheryl, and members. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with the committee and support it as an important and timely Bill. Currently, I serve as the town administrator for the town of Chevron. However, in prior roles, I've been the town engineer for the town of Framingham, assistant director of public works for the town of Framingham, and the director of Public Works for the town of Natick. Further, I've served on various municipal committees and boards and I can attest that the issue of Double Paul's, is initial in nearly all communities in the Commonwealth. My professional roles have received many inquiries and complaints from residents regarding double calls. Although the current statute outlines reasonable deadlines for utility companies to remove decommissioned polls and polls in conflict with a public need. There is no enforcement mechanism to help municipalities hold utility companies responsible. I've seen these delays cause a wide range of challenges and communities Many double poles are unsafe with bare wires left hanging. We've all seen these poles clash together with wire and temporary bracing. The double poles obstruct pedestrian passes on sidewalks, creating accessibility and mobility challenges. Olls blocking sidewalks cause significant hardship for folks in wheelchairs and can prevent proper maintenance of sidewalks by limiting the function of sidewalk clouds and snow removal equipment.
We know that the legislature is interested in ensuring safe and accessible passage for all roadway and sidewalk users, and then MasT OT in many communities that adopted formal policies encouraging complete streets to accommodate all users. The presence of double polls directly conflicts with these important policy polls. Untimely removal and relocation of falls have caused considerable delays in com the completion of public projects. From my experience, the removal relocation of utility poles to accommodate public improvement projects has been and continues to be a significant challenge, often delaying the completion of projects and leading to the ex-escalation1908 of costs. Responsibility for full relocations and double1912 or removal varies by community but also, bipolar occupancy within a community, just determining the company responsible and co-coordinating with many utility contacts is a significant effort. It's nearly impossible to obtain firm deadlines from utility companies for relocation or removal of utility calls. Making it very difficult to plan and implement these public projects. We've all driven through the road through roadway projects and witnessed utility poles preventing the completion of road rate projects. These delays are an unfortunate hardship for the public and increase the cost of publicly funded projects. Several recent projects in Natick are great examples, towns where construction of South Main Street was delayed for nearly 3 years waiting for re-utility pole relocation.
The reconstruction of Pine Street was similarly weak and delayed. In fact, a single utility pole remained in the traveling in the center of Pine Street for months after the roadway completion. We had to put concrete barriers around the pole in an attempt to make the really safe of vehicles. It uses stories of its long pole circulated in the news. Despite being deemed no fault of the town, these situations undermine the public trust. We recognize that municipalities must work in partnership with private utility companies to provide essential services to our residents We appreciate this partnership and work hard to foster communication and coordination, by allowing companies the ability of municipalities the ability to remove these commission polls and relo relocate polls and conflict public projects. He was allowing us an additional opportunity to work in partnership with utility companies. The legislation provides the missing tools communities need to administer projects efficiently, ensure public safety, and increase mobility. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to me for too many. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Alright. And you have to thank Adrian for giving you extra time with her testimony. So don't thank me. Thank her.
SPEAKER13 - Happy to Thank you, Adrian.
SPEAKER2 - And Andy's gonna wrap it up.
SPEAKER14 - Thank you, chair. Roy, members of the committee.
SPEAKER2 - Yeah. And
SPEAKER14 - These these are my comments.
SPEAKER2 - I'll see what was taken up, Andy. So don't think you have extra seconds, don't you?
ANDY HOGELAND - I will be speedy. Alright. At least the utilities were as speedy, but thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. You know, this bill is an amendment to section 34 B of chapter 164. 34b is the section that says the utility poll should be removed within 90 days. I assume that when the legislature passed 34 b years ago, they thought they were solving the problem by imposing the deadline. But as we've heard, this has not been solved. 34b opposed requirement, but there's no mechanism to enforce, compliance the bill kind of creates a right, but there's no corresponding remedy. So we see now that if plan A of the deadline does not work, then we need some kind of plan b. That very simply is what this bill does. It gives the town a remedy for situations where poll work delays are causing a problem.2101
Tack it do the port work itself and then send the bill to the utility. It's a very simple solution. There's no fiscal impact on the state. The work gets done as needed, and the utility ends up reimbursing, the cost. This is not an automated way to dangurate utilities. Utilities are busy people, and they've got lots to do. But if there's a delay in the process, this gives the towns an opportunity to, address it on their own and then submit the bill. Section 2, which wasn't discussed earlier, is I just want to remind you that it's there. It's another simple solution that essentially gives municipalities and public utilities the right to buy poles from an investor of utility at a price that reflects depreciation. So if there's a need to transfer title, this kind of facilitates that process and lays out what the pricing mechanism should be. Bills like, these bills have been submitted for several years. I think they're a simple solution, and we hope they move forward with the request. We request a dis committee report the bill out favorably so we can move forward to get the solution, in place. Thanks again for your time.
ROY - Thank you for your, testimony. Thank you to the entire panel. I do have, one question, that may lead to some others, and I know, Andy, you2180 addressed it by, talking about 34b as a 90-day requirement. I'm wondering, have any of the communities attempted to enforce that requirement by seeking either an injunction or some other relief in a court in accordance with that statute?
ANDY - I am happy to hear from my colleagues. I have I am not aware of any, and I think that's probably because of the story that you almost told us, which is, you know, utility couldn't do it. So the utility says if you wanna do it, you pay for it. So the idea of going for an injunction or relief just makes it a long cumbersome process. So, like, a much faster thing is to, you know, let the town just do the job themselves and then get the reimbursement from the utility. But going through a legal process is, as you all know, I think difficult time time-consuming, and expensive.
COLBY - Yes, chair Roy, this is Jeff Colby from Yarmouth. I'm not aware of any community in our area that's gone through that, taking that step to try to address that with utility companies directly. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Okay. Alright. Any other claim
SPEAKER13 - from here?
JEREMY - Alright. We have inquired to various time councils that I work with regarding that, and they've advised that it was there was no basis to go forward. It wasn't enough, teeth in the current legislation to current general law to to move forward with such a lawsuit?
ROY - So a statute that says that it must be done in 90 days does not have any teeth. Is that what I'm hearing?
ANDY - That's my view. You know, it's normal. We like this bill because it's an enforcement mechanism, that lists the towns, and does the job. So the work gets done, the bill gets paid by the right person, and off we go.
ROY - But if you went into court and used the statute. You don't think you'd get those remedies under that?
ANDY - I think there's a chance to get in those remedies after many, times 90 days. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Okay. Any other questions from the panel, either in the building or online? I see none. Thank you for your test.
SPEAKER7 - Thank
SPEAKER11 - you very much.
SPEAKER2 - And, I see that rep Ferguson has joined us. Come on up. Your neck
SPEAKER7 - Thank you so much. We appreciate you taking me out of turn. It's been a crazy morning. As you know, as My colleagues know as it can be, and I have to rush off to cover informal sessions. So I promise I will be extremely brief.
SPEAKER2 - Well, I'll hold you here as long as possible to
SPEAKER16 - meet up
SPEAKER2 - in that
SPEAKER7 - informal session. Love to hold up session for me.
SPEAKER2 - Okay. You're gonna testify for about 25 minutes.
REP FERGUSON - HB 3699 - SB 2131 - SB 2139 - SB 2117 - HB 3150 - Thank you. Get the questions already. So I, again, thank you so much. For having me here today, this morning, and for all the work that you do on the committee. I come here wearing two hats. I come here to speak about a bill that I filed HB 3699 and act relative to municipal life plan emergency mutual aid, which I think the committee is familiar with, and I also come here as, chair house chair of the Munis municipal light plant caucus. So first regarding HB 3699, which I respectfully request that you move favorably out of committee, this session again, as you may be aware, I've been involved with issues pertaining to municipal light plants for many years, and I have several municipal light plants in my district. Currently, 52 towns in mass are served by 1 of 40 municipal light plants, so across the state. Residents of municipal light towns make up 13% of all energy customers in the commonwealth of Mass. HB 3699 is an important piece of legislation that clarifies the existing municipal life plan emergency mutual aid statute.
Regarding the protection of municipal life plan employees in the event of injury or death, while participating in emergency mutual aid services provided by its MLP employer. The proposed clarifying language, very simple, would specify that MLP employees are protected under Chapter 32 of the general laws in the event of injury or death while performing such work. It would specifically reference employees of MLPs and recognize those instances where such employee participation in emergency mutual aid is voluntary and specifically clarifies that ancillary equipment and goods are included as part of providing emergency mutual aid. As MLPs desire to continue to provide2474 emergency mutual aid to other utilities outside of their MLP service territory, we really feel that this legislation is critical in specifically clarifying that the MLP employees are affected in the event of unfortunate injury or death while performing the work. I fully support HB 3699 I've filed it for a few sessions now. I know that you're familiar with it and very supportive, and I appreciate that. I'm bringing greetings for my colleague, Senator Gobi as well, who former Senator Goby has filed2505 its counterpart with me as well, and she sends her greetings. Thanks for your consideration of this bill. Thank you so much. Furthermore, wearing my house. - The bill we tried to oh, we got through on the house.
FERGUSON - Absolutely. Okay. Your leadership was essential, and I appreciate that. But this week, we're going to keep it going. Right? Keep going. We're going to get there. We will. This is the year. I believe it. I'm2528 wearing my hat as house chair that going to the Super Bowl too. Well,
FERGUSON - Thanks a lot, Mr Jammon. Okay. Did you have any Bills in session today coming up, or Do you want me to just I can run upstairs, lastly, before I go, wearing my hat as chair house chair of the MLP caucus, an amazing group of colleagues that I work with and advocate for our MLPs across the state? There are a few bills, again, that we want to be on record as either supporting or opposing, and you will all get this in writing to the committee today. So, obviously, first HB 3699, my Bill in Senator Gobe's bill, which was SB 2131. Again, I just spoke about that. Senator Keenan's bill SB 2139, is an act relative to municipal light plants. It expands exemptions from public records law and open meeting law. There is already an exemption in there. It does expand it slightly for the work that they need to do and for their own protection, especially with regard to issues dealing with their customers and protection of them and their ability to conduct business.
So that is one, but we also are very concerned about SB 2117 and HB 3150. We oppose that bill, both versions. That's an act advancing clean energy, equity, and innovation within municipal municipal utilities. briefly, I know our folks from Municipal Electric Association in Mass are also here to testify with serious concerns about this one. The nature of public power, as we know, all MLPs are locally controlled and operated. By management and primarily elected commissioners. The local control has resulted in lower electricity rates for ratepayers, and lower greenhouse gas emission rates, especially compared to our IOUs, and our customers often talk about that. We're very out of what they're able to do. This proposed legislation would be an incursion of the local control vested in the MLPs which is given to them under longstanding law. We really have concerns about what that would mean for their operation and their ability to function in the way that they are now. So I know that there is detailed information that's going to be provided to you about that, but we are very concerned about that bill moving forward. With that, again, I thank you very much for your time. I thank you for taking me out of turn. I'm going to run upstairs. So yeah. Don't you leave us? Oh, sorry. Questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - We have 20 minutes of
Oh, see that?
SPEAKER7 - Yeah. We can Well, no.
MESCHINO - I just wanted to thank the rep for filing the bill of mutual aid in particular, most of the MLPs are small communities. Especially as a coastal community, I can just say to you that mutual aid is usually important, to these towns, and it needs to be able to extend to the MLP itself because when something hap goes south and something happens, you know, it's not like your national grid and you can bring crews in, in anticipation of a big storm. You just are who you are and you have to rely on your neighbors quite literally. So I just wanted to say thank you for filing that and hopefully this year, we can actually get to press
FERGUSON - Thank you for your support and well said. I mean, we know these towns work together very closely. They're the first ones. They just jump and go. Unfortunately, you know, no fault of their own, but we do need to see if we can activate this simple change just for their protection and for their families. So again, appreciate that. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Any other questions, either from, folks present or online? You're off the hook. Thank you. And we'll we'll definitely try it.
SPEAKER7 - Happy to follow-up at any time, Mister Chairman.
SPEAKER17 - Sorry. Thank you again.
SPEAKER2 - 1 last question. This does have the support of the retirement for Absolutely.
SPEAKER7 - That was something that was worked on during last session at length.
SPEAKER2 - Okay.
SPEAKER7 - And I, you know, I know we've had conversations about that as well, and I appreciate that. Because that was a little hurdle that we wanted to be sure we got over first.2781 So I appreciate that.
SPEAKER17 - Alright. Thank
SPEAKER2 - you. Have a great day.2785
SPEAKER7 - You too.
SPEAKER2 - And, next, witness to testify is Lara Gardna from the Climate Reality, Massachusetts. Lara, are you with us?
No, Laura. Robert, you're here. Look2801 at that. You're on. Yes.
You got the Prime seat.
ROBERT WOODFIELD - MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS - HB 3699 - SB 2139 - HB 3142 - SB 2146 - HB 3150 - Thank you, Mr Chairman, members of the committee. For the record, I'm Robert Brodafield with the law firm of Ferris Skoball and Brodafield. I'm here today representing the Municipal Electric Association of Massachusetts which is comprised of all 40 municipal light plants. I did say after, Representative Ferguson's testimony, I don't know if I to say, anything else. You did an outstanding job speaking, particularly to the issues that I wanted to speak to, today. As I'm2848 looking at my phone, I'm just starting my 3-minute. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Oh, it's right there.
SPEAKER18 - I buy oh, it is. Okay.
SPEAKER2 - Don't worry about it.
WOODFIELD - I thought it was behind you. Oh, well, so I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I just wanted to go on record, on a number of bills and, then I'll be more specific.2867 I'm we are here on behalf of the municipal electric associations to support H3699, which represents Ferguson Just, and spoke to, H3142, Senate 2139, here in opposition to house 3150. Senate 2117 and Senate 2146, and would recommend some amendatory languages sent to 095, which is sent to the creams bill, and I'll be forwarding something in writing on that. With respect to the time that I have remaining. I'd like to speak to 22 particular bills. One is H3699, which, representative Ferguson spoke to. So eloquently, as we are aware, there are various times, during adverse weather situations where municipalities need help. As the representative of Machino, pointed out some of the municipalities are small. During those adverse weather conditions, municipal light plants, step up to the play to help, their neighbors. Many times, the help comes during adverse weather conditions when something has to be accomplished. The municipal life plan employees volunteer to do this, generally because it's not necessarily in their town.
So we wanted to make sure that in the event, the unfortunate event that someone is injured or or worse, we while performing this emergency mutual aid, the task that they would be covered, by the retirement board. The problem is, it's not that the statute isn't so clear that they would be, and that individual decisions could be made by the re-retirement board. We are concerned that since this is a voluntary nature, it could be brewed in a way that might be detrimental to the particular employee's, you know, benefits. So we think that this will, certainly resolve that issue. In my 7 seconds, I have left, with respect to, bills filed by, Senator Eldridge and Representative Catello, very briefly, and I'll be filing written testimony on that. The problem with these bills, even though they may be well intention, is they would mandate. That means polite comes under the renewable, renewable portfolio standard as well as the Clean Peak standard. They3014 currently do not this is the equivalent of, changing horses in midstream. Municipal Lake plans have planned their energy portfolio for years out. Without any potential requirements on these, for these other programs, this would conflict with the existing contracts that they may have and are already obligated to pay for. That would, down to the detriment of municipal light plant customers. So with that, my time is up. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Well, thank you, and thank you for the use of the word redound. I haven't heard that in a long time.
SPEAKER7 - Yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER18 - I I haven't either. It's it's it's great.
SPEAKER2 - It's very smooth. Any questions? Representative.
MESCHINO - I just didn't know if you wanted to, refer to the obligation, that MLPs have to actually achieve the net 0 by 2050. In fact, I didn't know if you wanted to share sticks, that they are, in fact, making pretty good headway better than the state. I just thought you might wanna comment on that.
WOODFIELD - Given the opportunity, I will come in. Time around here. No. Two years ago the legislature passed the greenhouse gas emissions standard, which is the standard for non-carbon emitting, emissions for municipal light plants. Again, getting to 2050 net 0 where everyone else, including the IOUs, has to be. Municipal Life Plans collectively today, are about 10% higher in terms of non-carbon emissions than the IOUs are collectively. I speak to the municipal light plants collectively as well as the IOUs collectively. So they're well on their way to, achieving, 2050, the 2050 goals. I think Representative, Cottaldo mentioned that some towns are further along the the process.
That's true. The reason is because of local control of the municipal life plan. That they are making those decisions, both their energy portfolio decisions, doing things at that particular town or the light commission, is spousing policy, which they're implementing. That's consistent with what municipal light plants are all about. Not every municipal light plant is because of their long-term obligations. Some may be unclear. It can't get there in terms of, what representative Catalba was saying as quickly, but that's the key to municipal life I might add that, as a, related, but unrelated municipal life plan rates are traditionally lower than IOU's rate. So, and a lot of that relates to the fact3178 that they can enter into these long-term contracts, which IOUs cannot, they can establish their energy portfolio down the road and sort of hedge when those rates tend to go up and down and fluctuate depending on the current market. So thank you for the question. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Alright. Any other questions? Questions? Any questions from, members online? Seeing nothing. I thank you for your testimony.
SPEAKER18 - Thank you very much.
SPEAKER2 - Next witness is Adele Franks. Adele, are you with us? Virtually, I believe.
FRANK ADELE - LOCAL ENERGY ADVOCATES OF WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS - HB 3852 - I am here virtually. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify. I am testifying on behalf of local energy advocates of Western Massachusetts. We're supporting an inter-municipal aggregation of three of our municipalities, and we're just about ready to submit our aggregation application to the DPU. I am testifying today on behalf of H3852, not only because it would make approval by the DPU quicker and avoid the unwarranted delays that you've heard so much about, but also because it would clarify what features the CCAs are subject to DPU regulation and make it very clear that the DPU regulations only cover the structural aspects of CCAs and not the operational or implementation aspects of the CCAs that really belong to the municipality. That are accountable to their constituents. So I hope that the committee members will read the comments on dpudocket23 dash 67. To get a full picture of the burdens that the DPU process currently imposes on municipalities. It's really staggering, that these delays and the minutiae, the micro-management of CCAs are allowed to continue. I hope3329 that you will give this Bill a favorable report. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Any questions from our runs online. Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. And next, I will call on Sharon Molton from climate action now in Sharon, I believe, is virtual as well.
Sharon, is that you? You're muted. Can you unmute yourself?
SPEAKER20 - Did I just do it?
SPEAKER2 - You just did it. Fantastic. You pass.
SHARON MOULTON - CLIMATE ACTION NOW - HB 3852 - Thank you, Representative, Roy. I'm Sharon Moulton, and I'm also from York Hampton, I'm on the steering committee of climate action now. I've been, involved in part of the plea that Adel just talked about from the very time that Northampton started talking about, filing an aggregation, and as Adele said, I can't tell you how long we've been told that the application is just about ready to be filed. So I'm here in, support of, representative Vitola's bill H3852 which climate action now Western Mass endorses. I'm going to be very brief because, Thank you very much to Representative Batello because the panel his testimony and the panel just stick explained all the things that his bill handles, in addition to making the time for, DPO, and DPU approval codified. You're you're making Representative Vitolo blush over here. Is he lavishing on this praise?
Well and I don't know if I hopefully, he remembers me because we met. Also, I filed written testimony where I detailed all these good things about the bill. But I'm there was just one thing that was on my list of good things about the bill that I didn't hear mentioned by the panel and that is not only our communities, required to have, a public website with all the information available to people in the communities. but in this bill. The annual report that was mentioned has to have information about a couple of websites so that in checking annual reports, the DPA can look and make sure that the public website wasn't just set3530 up at the beginning of the program but is being maintained. I think3536 that's very important. So thank you very much. I just hope that you're going to act quickly. I've heard this testimony about these things that really need to be fixed right away, and I hope that you don't wait until July, you know, make this part of some huge bill that's decided when you declare that July 31st never ends. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Well, Sharon, we will try not to disappoint you. We'll do our best. Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions? I'm not seeing any questions. So, we will, move on to Ronald DeCourzio, from a mass municipal wholesale electric company. Ronald, are you here?
Oh, he's virtual. Are you virtual? Ronald?
Okay. There you are. I can see a lips moving, but no sound is coming out.
Call 1 of the kids up.
Alright. We'll we'll we'll come back to you, once you get your sound up and running. And, at this point, we'll move on to, Peter Dione from Wakefield Municipal Gas. Peter? Virtual?
SPEAKER17 - Yes. Thank you, champ.
SPEAKER2 - I gotcha.
PETER DION - WAKEFIELD MUNINCIPAL GAS - HB 3806 - SB 2146 - ( R ) I was going to speak on the same bill that Ron was about to speak on, which is the House bill 3806 Senate Bill 2146 in Act, reforming the Massachusetts municipal wholesale electric company's board of directors. As you may or may not know, Emwork was created through an act of the state legislature to serve the Commonwealth's joint action agencies for municipal utilities. Mark's purpose is to enable MLPs to utilize joint action to completely compete in the energy markets in a way that is them with the goals and objectives of their individual communities as noted earlier by, Mr Rodafel, local control. This legislation, if passed, would undermine AmEx's mission to serve the municipal utilities through their own local control and local decision-making abilities. Emwork is a volunteer organization. The cities and towns are both to join Emwork as members, and each MLP has the ability to discontinue3688 membership in Emrick, by the vote of their board.
The bill would reserve three of the currently, seven elected seats on the MLP board for commissioners. The commissioners have already had that right for many years. As a matter of fact, one of our awards is, the EGA that we give out for public service is named after a commissioner from Marvelhead, Mr Phil Sweeney, who served many, many years on the Amec Board with dedicated service. One of our former commissioners here in Wakefield gentleman named Mr. Gil McCarthy was actually the president of America for many years. So commissioners have always had the right to be on the Amec board. That, so there's really no need to change that aspect of this bill. It's up to each individual community to nominate who you know, somebody to serve on the board and we don't restrict that to the state. The changes to the board makeup under this legislation effectively disenfranchised members and removed their intended input from local communities. Board terms will be shortened from 3 years to 1-year terms would be shortened to 1-year terms versus3760 the current 3-year staggered terms, which would have a negative impact on con continuity.
Especially when we deal with many large projects, that, take several years to develop from a conceptual phase to a design phase to an implementation phase. That's why we have a rolling 3 year, board cycle so that we maintain some level of consistency each year. Under the legislation, Emwick would be under a stricter form of review for their financing opportunities, for major projects. Which would add, layers of, complexity to the DPU approval process. No other entity is required to obtain DP approval with this level of review. None of Amwick's debt or funds come from the commonwealth. All funds for Ammark projects are paid for by the ratepayers who are participating in those projects. These provisions essentially treated MR differently than others who are forced to, go to DPU for, financing approval. The legislation does threaten the ability to protect trade secrets and may have detriment detrimental long-term effects on MLPs. All of these provisions together would threaten the existence of Emwork by weakening the MLP's local control. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions either from the, panel present or, online? And, rep Owens has emerged from3855 the virtual world, and he's now seated with us in the room. Welcome, rep3859 Owens. I see no questions. Thank you very much for your testimony. We will now move on to Bob Armstrong, who's also virtual. Bob, are you with us?
SPEAKER21 - Yes. I am. Can you hear me?
SPEAKER2 - Absolutely.
BOB ARMSTRONG - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 3852 - Bob Armstrong, and we're retired select Conway, and I'm testifying in strong support for, Tom Vitolo's bill H3852. I have to thank you, Tom, for writing this bill. Now the primary intent of this bill is simple. It's to prevent the DPU from establishing those crippling regulations that they have in docket 2367. Please, I really encourage everyone on this committee to read the comments about 2367 and primarily read the comments from a group called 47 Coffin Street. If you don't read anything else in those comments, look up 47 Coffin Street, and I've included them in the testimony that I sent in with my testimony. They detail the terrible damage that these regs are going to cause. I fear that the DPU is going to ignore the strong comments requesting that that docket just be closed. That means that our only remedy is to pass this legislation 3852. To pass it before they finalize those regulations. This bill clarifies 3852 that the intent of the original legislation was that local officials like Selectboards would have the authority to make all the decisions regarding program operations and not the DPU, which they wanna do as a regulating body. These include who makes decisions and how operations are managed, how officials communicate, with their community, and all the things that select boards and local officials do.
It narrows the DPU oversight to just verifying that the plan they submit contains those structural elements. Today, they are not allowed by law to aggregate. Almost every other town in the Commonwealth already has an active aggregation plan. Or they're in the process of getting plans approved. I suspect that many of you on the TUE live in towns that have a municipal aggregation. Chairman Barrett's towns are all aggregated. Except for Concord, which has an MLP. Chairman Roy in your district, Franklin, is aggregated and Medway is refiling their plan. I wonder, are you hearing complaints about your aggregation? That would justify the DPU making these crippling changes. In my town, our Select board is regularly praised for Conway's aggregation. The beauty of the aggregation law is that it empowers local officials, the forms plans that fit their community, although this is the intent of4056 the original legislation and it's working4058 well, this is precisely what the department's new regulations seek to remove. So please pass HB 3852. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Well, thank you for your testimony. I can assure you that, while the resident of Franklin, aggregated, they're not aggravated. So, I will
SPEAKER1 - right.
SPEAKER2 - Well, any questions? Seeing none, we will move on to our next, person to testify Alan Linov, virtual. Alan, are you with us?
ALAN LINOV - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 3852 - I am. So for about 3 years, I've been a member of a group of volunteers who help with promoting the Arlington Electric load aggregation program. We've mainly focused on encouraging residents to choose the option to get 100% local renewable electricity rather than the default 30%. To make the switch to 100%, they need to fill out a form. Through experience, we found that people are most likely to take this action if the existence of the option is brought to their attention and if the option is easy to understand and easy to exercise. We've been hampered in making it easy to understand by the rigidity with which the Department of Public Utilities has managed aggregation programs. I'll tell you what4149 I mean by that. With the definition of our program that was approved by the DPU in 2017,4155 choosing 100% does not really mean that 100% of your electricity is renewable, but you're getting 100% extra renewable the on top of the state-mandated amount. Is that easy to understand? I don't think so either. When we talk to people about the options, we show them what the percentages mean in the simplest terms we can.
We would really like to revise our programs so that 100% simply means 100%. But, however, because of a DPU ruling last year, redefining our 100% option would mean that the 1200 residents that we've already enrolled in that option would get kicked entirely out of our aggregation program and into Eversource Basic service. We would have to do a campaign to try to find them all over again. Well, the DPU processes are unnecessarily impeding our efforts Arlington is relatively lucky among towns and cities in the Commonwealth. Our residents and build businesses have saved a lot of money on their electricity over the lifetime of our aggregation program and have left a lot of fossil fuels unburned. Many Massachusetts communities want to get their own aggregation programs started and have been stalled by the4240 DPU. While those communities are stuck with getting most of their electricity from fossil fuel-burning power plants, we and all our descendants suffer the damage to our climate caused by the greenhouse gases, the burning releases. Reform of the DPU process for handling electric load aggregation programs is urgently needed. So please support the enactment of the reforms contained in each 3852. Thank you for your attention. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions? Seeing none. We will move on to the next, witness is, Stephen Winter from Cohasset in 350 Mass, and Steven, you're with us. It's all yours.
STEVE WINNER - 350 MASSACHUSETTS - HB 3852 - Thank you, Chair Roy, and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to test by today. I'm Steve Winter, a resident of Cohasset, and a member of 350 Massachusetts, an organization of volunteers engaged in advocacy for strong and urgent action in addressing the climate crisis. I'm also chair of the aggregation sub-committee of the Cohasset Alternative Energy Committee. Today, I'm speaking in support of H3852, and act supporting electrical load aggregation programs. Both the town of Cohasset and 350 Massachusetts endorsed this Bill. The main problem as I see it is that the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities has increasingly made the process for submitting aggregation plans and getting them approved or amended extremely frustrating and delayed. In 2021, there were 24 towns with initial or amended plans under review that still have not had a resolution from the DPU after4362 waiting an average of 3 years. Only seven towns had their plans approved last year. None have been approved this year. In the case of Cohasset, it was only with the help of our state legislators representative Joan Moschino and Senator Patrick O'Connor, and the petitioning of our town officials and perhaps noisy demonstrations by hundreds of activists in front of DPU headquarters that the DPU.
Finally finished their review and approved our plan and 6 others after a delay of more than two and a half years. Because of these extremely long delays, the residents of Cohasset and other towns have been denied for years the benefits of greener and cheaper electricity that they could otherwise have attained from their community choice aggregation programs. This bill will solve most of those problems and make other improvements. I will mention only three provisions that I think are most important. First, the bill specifies that the DPU will be responsible for regulating the structural requirements of aggregation programs, but the details of implementation will be left up to4430 each individual town.
This will make the DPU's review and oversight more efficient and prevent its micromanaging details that should be left to local control. If the DPU does not act by the deadline. The second major change is that the DPU will have a time limit of 90 days to review plans. If the DPU does not act by the deadline, the plan is approved by default. I should mention that in the early years, The DPU seemed to have little4459 difficulty reviewing plans in a4461 few months. Only in4463 recent years has the review process gotten bogged down and dragged out for years. In conclusion, I hope you will advance H3852 favorably on a committee. It's a much-needed and well-considered revision of the original Utility Structuring Act of 1997 and will make Community Choice Aggregation is a much more effective opportunity for the towns and residents of Massachusetts. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there any questions? Seeing none. Thank you very much. And, our next wit is John Zimarengas from Energy New England. John is all yours.
SPEAKER23 - Thank you very much. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Vice Chairman, members of the committee.
SPEAKER2 - I got the last name. Right?
SPEAKER23 - You did.
SPEAKER2 - Not bad.
SPEAKER23 - Thank you. We practice
SPEAKER2 - how long in the office the other day.
JOHN TZMORARANGAS - ENERGY NEW ENGLAND - HB 3150 - SB 2117 - We did. We practiced quite a bit in the office the other day. I know you want to get it right. Thank you for having me today. I'm John Zamares, president, and CEO of Energy New England. I'm representing our E and E strategies lobbying division today which has 31 municipal utilities in it. A few of the bills have already been touched on, so I'm not going to repeat that for the committee. I think they've they've heard most of it. That's a former Senator Gobe's bill and Kim Ferguson's bill that she spoke on. We certainly support those. I'm also an officer in our northeast Public Power Association, which handles mutual aid. Throughout New England, it is becoming something that everybody needs. You know, the smaller systems, whether it's in mass or in New England, always go and help each other. So being able to protect those workers is very, very important. So we certainly support those. Senator Keenan's bill, 29, 2139, we've had occasions that people can use public records requests in the wrong way to get customer information where you can't get it from an IOU, and that's been a problem at the municipal utilities.
So this kind of takes away that narrow piece and large, I guess, the trade secrets and customer information that can be protected. So I think we wanna support that for sure. A couple of oppositions, and then being our go well already heard from the rep, but Senator Cream's bill, 2095, is a terrific idea about helping systems get technical assistance. The problem is it wants to put us into 21 in, which is kind of the RPS and the clean peaks standard, which kind of contradicts SB 9 that was passed that already has the MLPs with, greenhouse gas reductions by 20 by 20, 30, 50%, 75, and net 0 as the representative talked about earlier. If that last sentence was removed from that, that would be something that we could look at because we do think it is a helpful, piece of legislation from a technical perspective. HB 3150 and SB 2117. We have had long talks with rep Cataldo and Senator Eldridge. The part of part of the real problem too is, that there were some changes made to it. It only affects 14 MLPs. So if we really wanted to do something, we we would think it'd be a much broader bill to do that.
But, again, putting us into standards that kind of contradict everything we've kinda worked towards and where systems have worked towards, doesn't make a lot of sense to us. I had Caleb and I thank him for passing out to the committee. Some non-carbon projects that E and E have done for their customers since 2020. So if people want to say that these systems aren't doing things, that's 424 megawatts. That's half of a vineyard wind that these folks have signed up for in the last 3 years. 2 thirds of them are new. Those don't get built if we don't sign those contracts with those developers, and a third is existing. They range anywhere from hydro, to solar. There's some nuclear, there's some onshore wind, some offshore wind, This is a, you know, there's a total combination of that many megawatts that folks are moving towards, and these are long-term projects. Which kind of gets us past the 2030 heading to 2040. So those 2 Bills are a big concern because of the language in them. I thank the committee for that time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank so much. Any questions?
SPEAKER23 - Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you for your testimony. Absolutely. Alright. Now we have another panel consisting of Michael Aussing, Catherine Moses, Mario Marshand, and Stuart Harmsby. Floor is yours.
Who's gonna start us off?
MICHAEL OSSING - MARLBOROUGH MUNICIPAL AGGREGATION - HB 3852 - Thank you, Chairman Roy. Members of4737 the Committee for the opportunity to share some municipal insights on House Bill 3852. I'm here speaking in support of it. My name is Michael Asing. I'm retired after working 35 plus years at Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant. I'm a 24-year city councilor in the city of Marlborough. I'm currently serving my 4th term as the city council president. I'm also the chair of the Marlborough Municipal Aggregation Committee. I also serve as the chair of the MMA Energy And Environment Policy Committee. So just sharing some municipal insights for you. So the city of Marlborough has served and served extremely well by participating municipal aggregation process. Marlborough was the first city to implement a municipal aggregation program. That was back in 2006. Marvel residents participating in the program have seen the following benefits. Since 2006, the residents have4787 saved over $30,000,000 in their electricity bills.
Last winter alone, Mobile residents saved over $10,000,000 when the basic service rates went over 33¢. So to put that into an individual's perspective. The average home only is 600 kilowatts saving $147 per month or $880 over the winter. So the Marlboro program is 100% renewable. Alright. 100% win recs, and that exceeds the basic service requirements. Checking my time on the mobile program also provides residents with a stable, predictable energy supply rate for extended periods of time avoiding the swings of basic service. So getting to the bill, the goal of legislation is to simply plug the holes so that all decision-making over operational details is done at the local level. Each municipality is different, and you'll hear that. You know, so what works best for Marlboro may not work best for the other communities. This bill enables the municipality to have maximum flexibility, full use of the marketplace, both for pricing and renewable components, and the ability to communicate with its residents in the most appropriate manner possible.
The DPU should only be ruling on the elements of a statute as they did in the past. However, in recent years, the DPU has decided to fill in with their guidance where the statute is silent. The DPU outreach overreach handcuffs the opportunities municipal aggregation offers and reduces it to something similar to basic service. Which wasn't the intent of deregulation. It also limits future innovation on the supply side because any change would require DPU approval. As the municipal aggregation process has matured, the DPU has made the process frustrating and complicated. This has hampered cities and towns from implementing municipal aggregation programs in a timely manner. Keyword timely. This was not the legislation's intention back in 1997. The DPU focus should be on the structural elements of the program and municipalities should maintain control for the implementation of the program I respectfully asked for the committee to report favorably on House Bill 3852. Thank you, chairman. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Pretty good. We'll get right in
SPEAKER24 - It's the engineer.
SPEAKER2 - I love it. Who's next?
KATHERINE MOSES - CITY OF LOWELL - HB 3852 - Thank you, Chairman Roy and committee members for the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding House Bill 3852 and act supporting electrical load aggregation programs in the Commonwealth. On behalf of the city of Lowell, I'd like to add my support to the effort. My name is Catherine Moses. I'm the energy manager for the city of Lowell. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Yes. And Tom Golden down to deliver this message.
SPEAKER16 - Not today. Perhaps next time.
SPEAKER7 - Well,
SPEAKER8 - you tell
SPEAKER2 - them we send our love.
MOSES - I would do that. So I've served as the energy manager for the past 9 years. In this role, I've helped to manage our municipal aggregation program and monitor it to find ways to utilize the program for the benefit of our customers and for the benefit of the environment. Lola's a poster child for why this legislation is needed. We've always tried to be innovative. We were the first aggregation in the Commonwealth to have a completely carbon-neutral supply for our aggregation. Over the years, though, the ways that we get to renewable energy development and encourage renewable energy development have changed. Massachusetts Class 1 recs had been kind of the standard that many aggregations have begun to adopt. Through an engagement with our local stakeholders and our elected leaders, we actually have one of the highest levels of default products for agri with 45% more mask class 1 recs than are required by law. Well, it does make us a leader in the Commonwealth for the default product, but it doesn't allow us the flexibility that 75% of aggregations across the Commonwealth have.
In many of these aggregations, multiple products are offered. Many times there's a product that's at or near RPS, a mid-level product, and a 100% renewable product. This is wonderful for our constituents because it allows us in the community that are sensitive to price fluctuations to choose something with a lower level of recs and for those that want to be climate leaders, it allows them that option as well. So Lowell put in an amendment to our aggregation plan with the DPU to allow for this type of flexibility. On August 21, 2019. So in 4 years, Lowell, which has a large percentage of environmental justice populations has been unable to offer what 75 percent of the commonwealth's aggregations offer. House Bill 3852 would lead these types of product decisions and other implementation details at the local level where they should be kept. This helps us to not only meet the needs of our constituents but also to advance the Commonwealth goals towards net 0. I thank you for the opportunity to address you on these issues. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Great. Thank you so much. Ariel next. Thanks. Alright.
MARIELLE MARCHAND - CAPE LIGHT COMPACT - HB 3852 - Chair Roy and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Mariel Marshawn, and I'm the power supply planner for Capelight Compact. Municipal aggregation administers our power supply program for all 21 municipalities on Cape Cod and the aggregation plan filed in 2000 was the first in Massachusetts to be approved by the Department of Public Utilities. The compact is unique and that it's the only multi-municipality aggregator operating in Massachusetts and it employs staff to undertake its power supply operation. I'm here today to by representative Vitolo and a diverse group of municipal leaders and aggregation program administrators, including the compact, to address our collective concerns about the DPU's regulation of municipal aggregations.
This revision of the municipal aggregation statute is necessary to ensure that the compact and other approved municipal variation barriers. The compact has 20 years of experience5175 working to innovate and deliver products that best meet the needs and interests of our customers. The compact uses grassroots efforts such as presentations to boards of selectmen, community centers, newspapers, publications, and a comprehensive website to communicate with, learn from, and educate our customers regarding our aggregation program. This process and a pricing strategy that aims to keep compact pricing competitive with basic service, has successfully maintained a customer base of approximately 145,000 customers. H3852 would codify the compact's ability to continue successful operations.
In recent years, the GPU has shifted the way in which it regulates municipal aggregation dictating the specific manner in which aggregations communicate with their consumers and requiring plan amendment anytime aggregators elect to offer a new product that is not fully described within their plan. This regulatory approach is costly to consumers and Stifel's advancement in improvement. Municipalities should be afforded the discretion to design and operate aggregation programs that align with their consumers' needs, so long as their plans are consistent with a set of general rules. H3852 provides a reasonable balance between municipal discretion and regulatory oversight it outlines the general rules applicable to all aggregation plans and sets forth a fair and transparent approach for municipalities to operate their programs and educate their customers about their product offerings within these general rules For all of these reasons, the compact urges this committee to report out favorably on H3852. Thank you for the opportunity to testify SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you so much. Let's do it all yours.
STUART LAWRENCEBEE - COLONIAL POWER GROUP - HB 3852 - You very much, chairman, and members of the committee. Thank you very much for all your time and attention. I am speaking on behalf, or in support of H3852. You've already heard lots of com Terry, lots of testimony today. I'll try to get about half of what I have prepared. I'm Stuart Lawrencebee. I am with Colonial Power Group. We're one of the energy consultants working with, aggregation programs. We work with about 90 communities across the Commonwealth. Focusing on the bill itself. There are 3 major related themes to the bill. We heard a lot about clarifying the responsibility for program operations with municipal officials. You've heard a lot of testimony about the value of that. Now if you're going to do that, if we're gonna have that kind of clarification, that it's important to make sure the bill codifies important consumer protection and program5333 transparency with the do which the DPU would oversee. We don't want to5337 weaken5337 that element whatsoever.
Finally, making this clarification actually enables the department to conduct its oversight in its review in a timely manner and in a quality way. The current statute is fairly broad, written many years ago, and that lack of specificity has contributed, we think, to the department following sort of inherent disposition to regulate, and it's been increasing quite a bit over the last several years. So by clarifying this local authority, it'll preserve the ability of communities to make full use of the marketplace, to make their own decisions around pricing, product choice, and also their ability to communicate using methods that reflect local needs, and local preferences. So by asking the legislature to clarify this local authority, is that a sensible, is that a prudent action? I'd say yes. Municipal officials are accountable to5392 their constituents. They are sensitive to only supporting and administrating programs that are well-managed and responsive to the needs of their communities. Municipal officials are experienced in energy procurement. They've been doing this for a couple of decades for their own facilities.
For the water treatment plants for schools. They understand the market dynamics, and we've heard 2 great examples of city leaders who understand the importance of establishing an operating environment that allows them to be flexible, strategic, and nimble. There's there's been, some discussion about DACA 2367, and I'm speaking a bit off the cuff here. Sort of the un I think yeah. Underlying some of the questioning here is perhaps a department is prepared to make some important changes here that'll sort of fix all this. I'm not so sure. I'm not so confident in that. In part, to no fault of5445 their own, and by that, I mean, they've5447 opened up a docket with sort of reestablishes all their prior rulings to date. They didn't take a 90-degree turn, and I think it's going to be cult for them to make that 90-degree turn without some guidance from the legislature, which recognizes and acknowledges the importance of local authority and decision-making. Thank you very much for your time. We very much appreciate your support on this bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you so much. Are there any questions? Seeing that? I thank you for your testimony.
SPEAKER24 - Thank you.
SPEAKER2 - Next, witness whose test signed up is Mark Diane. I did not see Mark in the room. Is Mark available online?
He is.
SPEAKER27 - Yes.
SPEAKER2 - Alright.
MARK DYEN - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 3852 - I'm even visible now. Thank you, Cameron Wright and the committee for the opportunity. I guess I'm joining the long list of people who are advocating for H3852. Legislation on, municipal aggregation prepared by Tommy5509 Vittola on a house to friends. I will not repeat what has been said before, so I will be brief. The bill establishes a time limit on DPU review and approval or non-approval of municipal aggregation proposals, which will deal with a number of communities that I'm working with who have faced delays of upwards of 2 years in approval of what are basically fairly simple and straightforward municipal aggregation plans. This bill would put an end to that problem. The second thing it does is establish the right of municipal aggregators to provide a variety of services without undue administrative burden from the DPU, which is an important and valuable feature, from the climate change environmental justice point of view allows municipalities to forge ahead of the state in terms of offering,5568 promotional rates to encourage people to electrify their buildings or electrify their transportation, which we believe is now part of the law, but, a part of what5581 should be allowed under current law, but this legislation would clarify that opportunity to provide variety in this way. We certainly hope that this bill is reported favorably and promptly, for action by the legislature. Thank you very much for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you very much for your test Simoni. Are there any questions? Seeing none, we will move on to the next witness. Is, Talia Fox from the town of Arlington? Pally? All yours?
TALIA FOX - ARLINGTON COMMUNITY ELECTRICITY - HB 3852 - My name is Talia Fox, and I'm the sustainability manager for the town of Arlington. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to members of the committee for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of H3852 on behalf of Arlington's town manager, Jim Feeney, and the town of Arlington. Since 2017, the town has successfully operated a municipal aggregation program called Arlington Community Electricity or Ace. Ace offers critical benefits for residents, including price stability in a volatile energy market, competitive rates, and 4 products with a range of renewable energy content. Since the launch of the program, Ace has generated over $11,000,000 in cumulative savings for participants when compared to Eversource's basic service. While driving demand for renewable energy. As of July 2023, nearly 86 to the Ace default product, which currently provides 30% additional renewable energy in the form of purchases of class 1 rec. Above the level required by the RPS. Over 1500 accounts or 8% of the households in Ace have5685 enrolled in the town's 50% and 100% opt-up renewable energy products.
Additional flexibility to implement the5693 aggregation plans as H3852 proposes would have benefited the town been law last year. Specifically, it would have allowed the town to simplify its offerings and save residents money at a time of skyrocketing energy prices. During the town's 2022 contract renewal process, our select board voted for a simplified 3-tier program. The proposed changes would have made the product lineup easier to explain and would have made the 100% opt-up product more attractive and financially accessible for our residents. However, due to an earlier decision by the DPU on the city of Fitchburg's aggregation program, if the town had made these sensible changes, Approximately 1500 East customers would have been kicked out of the program and back on to Eversource Basic service, which at the time was more expensive. This also would have effectively reversed the choices that these program participants made voluntarily and proactively to increase their use of renewable energy, to say nothing about the considerable effort by town staff and volunteers, including one which you heard today, to educate town residents, and encourage them to opt up to higher levels of renewable energy.
The town had effectively no choice, but to maintain the existing program structure or weight for the many delays that you've heard about from the DPU to to adapt the program. The town will soon be facing the same decision point and would like again to consider changes to its program and negotiate a new contract this coming spring. Furthermore, as the statutory RPS requirements continue to rise and as new opportunities for offering innovative products grow, communities like Arlington will need additional flexibility. The town supports H3852 because it allows municipalities like Arlington with successful track records to be entrusted with the ability to make changes to their aggregation plans that make sense for local communities. The town respectfully, respectfully requests that you advance the bill favorably out of committee. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you so much for your testimony. Are there any questions? I see none. I have 1 more witness who has signed up to testify but did not give us a name but has an email. So I'm gonna call you by your email address, but ask you to please identify yourself when you testify if you are here. It's pkt123.
Pkt123. Are you with us?
SPEAKER27 - The the the yes, I am chairman Roy Thank thank you, Carol Roy. My name is Phil Fair, and I'm a concur resident. I've been following that miss the light plant activities closely for 15 years. How do you spell
SPEAKER2 - your last name?
SPEAKER27 - Fair, t h ayer. First name, Phil, p h I l.
SPEAKER2 - Thank you.
PHIL THAYER - CONCERNED CITIZEN - HB 3150 - So I support5854 HB 3150. I'm going to act at maximum clean energy, equity, and innovation. We're going to miss utilities. This bill is supported by 30 diverse client organizations across the state. Here's just a subset of those 30 groups. Master's Climate Action Network, Environmental League of Massachusetts, Berkshire Environmental Action Team, Conservation Law Foundation, Acadia Center Sierra Club, Massachusetts, Better Future Project 350 MAS, Brief Clean, North Shore, Green Hudson, Sustainable, Middleborough, and partnership for policy integrity. In order for us to meet our state's climate targets and an equitable transition to a clean energy future, the 41 MLPs must be held to the same standards for clean energy requirements as investor-owned utilities. H3150 will ensure the equitable distribution5905 of the benefits and burdens of those clean energy of the clean energy transition.
The bill requires MLPs to meet the renewable portfolio standard and clean heat standard by 2030 requirements that the IUs are already required to meet. In the interest of equity, a $50,000,000 fund will enable MLPs to accelerate the transition to clean energy for environmental justice communities, low and modern-income housing, and elderly housing that they serve. So I wanna make 3 points 1, contrary to what you heard earlier, make no mistake. MLPs lag behind on renewable energy. Tue members should be aware of the subtle distinction between non-emitting and renewable energy. The 2020 analysis found that while the rest of the state was legally required to have 16% renewable energy in their energy mix. MLPs have only 2%. 2nd, in the 2021 road map bill imposed emission stands for MRPs for the first time in the state's history, That's great, but we must encourage a significant increase in the use of new renewable energy for MLPs. And third, it's important for MLP members to understand that means, and E and E lobbies don't represent all MLPs any longer. MOPs are no longer monolithic. Half of the 41 MOPs now have climate-forward-like board members I welcome language modifications to accommodate the very circumstances of MLPs consistent with equity concerns and the need to increase renewable clean energy and MLP portfolios. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Thank you very for your testimony. Are there any questions? I see none. I'm going to, loop back to, Ronald Kersio to see if, Ronald may have, solved his audio issues. Ronald, do you still with us?
SPEAKER30 - Ron is, unable to get his audio working, but asked if I could read his testimony.
SPEAKER2 - Absolutely.
KATE ROY - MMWEC - HB 3806 - SB 2146 - Okay. Great. My name is Kate Roy. I am the director of communications and external affairs. Here at Emwick, I read the testimony on behalf of Ron Decourzio, who is the CEO of Emwick. I am testifying in opposition to House Bill 3806, Senate Bill 2146, an act performing the Massachusetts municipal wholesale electric company, Board of Directors. Emwig is the Commonwealth's designated joint action agency for municipal utilities. We are a not-for-profit, public corporation, and political subdivision of the Commonwealth. Created by an act of the general legislature in 1975 and authorized to issue of debt to finance a wide range of energy facilities. Amelik provides a variety of power supply, financial, risk management, and other services to our members. We have a hand in more than 200 megawatts of renewable energy projects, including wind, solar, and hydropower. Our members are well on their way to meeting their 50 carbonization goals, approximately half have already met or exceeded their 2030 goals of 50% carbon-free energy sales.
The customized power supply roadmaps we provide to each member have them well-positioned to meet 2040 and 2050 targets. We're a catalyst in bringing green technology to our MLP communities. We're helping them lead the way in promoting energy efficiency, demand response, and smart grid initiatives. Our statutory purpose is to allow the state's consumer-owned MLPs to join together to compete in the energy markets to meet the goals and objectives of their communities. This bill would undermine that mission and threaten the ability of MLPs to achieve their 2040 and 2050 net 0 goals. It does so by disenfranch disenfranchising member6152 MLPs, subjecting Emwick projects to a separate standard of DPU review, from all other projects before the department, and placing Emwick and our members at a competitive disadvantage in the energy markets by undercutting our ability to protect trade secrets. We'll go into more detail on all these points in our written testimony. But what I want to impress upon the committee is that is a voluntary membership organization.
MLPs vote to become Emwick members and may also vote to leave Emwick if they feel we can no longer carry out our mission. We're a6184 joint action agency, not a state authority. None of our debt or funds come from the commonwealth, and all funds granted to Emwick are from our members and their ratepayers. Checking on my time there. Additionally, non-MLP members adding additional non-MLP members to the Emwick Board, limiting MLP choice over who they can elect, and eliminating6205 board seats for the towns of Ludlow,6207 Hampton, and Wilburham, disenfranchises these very members imposing an entirely new standard of review upon the DPU solely for Emmett projects A standard that no other entity seeking DPU approval to issue debt would be subject to further diminishes the power of our member MLPs. To pursue projects and create a dramatically uneven playing field for Emwick versus all other energy projects in the state. I see my time's up. So thank you for your time. We'll submit our written testimony for further comment. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
SPEAKER2 - Well, thank you, Kate. Even with a great last name, you don't get additional time. So
SPEAKER30 - Thank you. I appreciate it.
SPEAKER2 - Alright. Well, and questions.
I see no questions. Thank you so much for your testimony. Those are all the witnesses I had signed up. Did I miss anybody?
Alright. With that, I I called this, meeting to a close. Thank you so much.
© InstaTrac 2025