2024-01-04 00:00:00 - Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight
2024-01-04 00:00:00 - Senate Committee on Post Audit and Oversight
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Senator Rush, who's a, member of the committee as well.
SEN PACHECO - The title of today's hearing is preparing for the costs and consequences of climate change. An oversight hearing as we imposed audit, yet to do from time to time is to actually dig down a little bit in terms of some of these issues and to try to prepare documents or recommendations, working in this case cooperatively with the administration to try to come up with strategies that we can implement to make sure that we're doing the best job we can to prepare for something that nobody knows what is going to be happening as we go forward. Also, in addition to today's hearing and as a result of a number of calls from my colleagues on these types of issues, one of the things that we're going to bring up today, just scratching the surface of not getting into it deeply because most of those questions need to be answered at the federal level is on the migration issue that is impacting us in terms of emergency shelter spaces and what's happening, how is that working, you know, those types of things. So,120 post audit will be putting together a document request127 to the executive branch and the various agencies that are in charge of what is taking place. Now, I know that the point on this under the Baker administration was MEMA for a while, so I may ask you to just give us an overview as to where things were there, but we will get a document request out so that way it's very specific as to what we're looking166 for in terms of the168 numbers. I think what happens is a lot of legislators try to find out what is, SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
senator Barrett. Welcome.
Sure.
I was just introducing some of the181 committee members. So, thank you very much for being here.
And,
you
PACHECO - Trying to get the specificity, for a193 lot of members that are trying to figure out exactly where the migration related issues are, where the shelters are, the contracts with the hotels, whether or not the food vouchers that are supposed to be taken211 care of with those, you know, whether or not it's happening the way it should be happening is what we're interested in looking at all of those numbers, and obviously looking at what the total potential cost could be. As I said at the beginning, most of these, questions need to be resolved at the federal level and that's something that we want to continue to work with the administration on to try to work with a federal256 delegation to try to push them as quickly as260 possible to try to get some resolve at the national level, on this one particular issue. But getting back to the title of today's hearing, the costs and consequences of climate change, what I'd like to do is I'd like to, as many of us were home for the holidays, and, towards the end of the year, some of the newscasts like MSNBC,289 CNN, and, you pick your favorite a group they come up with a little bit of background as to what happened in 2023, and I figured I wanted to share these two clips with you as we start today's hearing.
AL ROKER - NBC NEWS (VIDEO PRESENTATION) - 2023, the hottest year ever on Earth. A year of climate and weather extremes. In the US, the number of billion-dollar disasters tallied 25 more than any other year. New Year's rang in with thousands of records shattering across Europe. At least eight countries had their warmest January day ever. Back home, things were no better, a siege of atmospheric rivers lashed to the West Coast through March. Disruptive flash floods swept through parts of California, bury the Sierra under 60 feet of snow and brought a historically drive to Lori Lake back from the dead. When spring358 arrived, so did the tornadoes, the strongest and most devastating twister of the year was a ferocious EF4 tearing through rolling fork Mississippi, carving a 59-mile path across the state, and packing winds as high as 195373 miles per hour. Just days later, a two-day tornado outbreak spawned the third largest outbreak in US history. A shift to the East in what's384 known as the traditional tornado alley is making higher density and more vulnerable populations, a target for these types of disasters. In June, wildfire smoke was choking the big apple, making it seem like a Mars landscape, shrouding iconic landmarks like the Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building.
Both Chicago and New York had the dubious distinction of worst air quality in the world during that hazy week. Climate change making wildfire smoke outbreaks more frequent. As Northern cities suffocated, Southern cities broiled under relentless days of dangerous heat. At the end of July, Phoenix hitting a record 31 straight days of 100 degrees or hotter, the previous record, just 18 days. Miami's extreme heat and tropical humidity resulted in 46 days registering a heat index over 100 degrees. More than a dozen US cities recording their hottest summer on record. The tropics lit up in late August when hurricane Adelia rapidly intensified over the Gulf of Mexico, striking North Florida as a high-end category 3 with winds of 125 miles per hour. Fueled by record warm sea surface temperatures, the fourth most active in history.463 By November, the brutal heat plaguing the US was now boiling the Southern Hemisphere. The heat index in Rio de Janeiro hitting an astonishing 138 degrees, the highest ever recorded and for the third year in a row, deadly tornadoes ripped through the South just days before Christmas. 2023, experiencing so many extreme weather events, we couldn't include them all here. Climate change driven weather leaving its mark all around the globe. I'm Al Roker, NBC News.
Thanks for watching. Stay updated about breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app.
Just 1 quicker 1.
JAKE TAPPER - CNN (VIDEO PRESENTATION) - I'm Jake Tapper. World leaders finally address the elephant in the room this month when it comes to climate change, the burning of fossil fuels that is the primary cause of our warming planet. Former vice president Al Gore has been warning the world about fossil fuels for more than 20 years, and he is still working on the issue, he runs a nonprofit devoted to solving the climate crisis and somehow, looking to the future with544 hope that maybe human beings can change. And joining me now is former vice president Al Gore. Vice president Gore, thanks so552 much for joining us. So, Mr. vice president, 2023, officially the hottest year on record, deadly heat waves, catastrophic floods, devastating wildfires, more powerful storms. We've gotten dangerously close to the 1.5-degree Celsius threshold beyond which experts say humanity and the planet will struggle to adapt. What do you think 2024 will look like?
AL GORE - THE CLIMATE REALITY PROJECT (VIDEO PRESENTATION) - Well, we still have the ability to seize control of our destiny. Here's the good news, Jake, if we stop adding to the overburden of these greenhouse gas pollutants in the sky, if we reach what they call true net zero and stop adding to the heat trapping capacity up there, the temperatures will stop going up right away. And if we stay at true net zero, half of the human caused greenhouse pollution will fall out of the atmosphere in as little as 25 to 30 years. We have the ability to do this, and it's not impractical because we now have the cheapest new source of energy in the history of the world with solar electricity and wind electricity, and the electric vehicles reached 20% of sales globally this year. The batteries are now, we had one Giga factory several years ago, now there are 200 and another 400 being built. You know, a long time ago, one of the Saudi Arabian oil ministers said that we better remember the stone age didn't end because of a shortage of stones, it ended because640 something better came along. We've got something better now; we can do this if we just overcome the greed and political power of the big fossil fuel polluters who've been trying to control this process. It's time for people at the grassroots level in every country to speak up, and the good news is that's happening too.
TRAPPER (VIDEO PRESENTATION) - So you say we can fix663 this, what needs to happen?
GORE (VIDEO PRESENTATION) - Well, we need to break through this blockade, that the fossil fuel industry and the big petrol states have been using to block progress. We also need to reform this UN process because it requires, what they call consensus now, which is similar to requiring it to be unanimous if the President of the COP, decides that they don't see any objections, then he declares there's a consensus. That's why it's so important that that person who's in charge of the process not have a direct conflict of interest. We have to make a decision to get past fossil fuels, and start accelerating the shift over to renewable energy and efficiency. This is beginning to happen anyway, Jake. Last year,721 if you look at all the723 new electricity generation in worldwide, 80% of it was solar and wind. In India, it was 93%. It's cheaper now, and it creates three times as many new jobs for each dollar invested compared to dollars invested in the old dirty polluting fossil fuels. So, we have what we need, the International Energy Agency says that we've got all of the solutions that we need with proven deployment models to cut the emissions in half this decade, and we've got a clear line of sight to get the rest of it done before midcentury. So, we can do this, the only thing that we need is sufficient political will, but as many have pointed out, political will is itself a renewable resource, and these young people around the world are helping the world to renew it.
TRAPPER (VIDEO PRESENTATION) - So that's the good news, that's the good vision. But what happens if the world doesn't act? What's the worst-case scenario?
GORE (VIDEO PRESENTATION) - Well, the scientists who warned us of these mega storms and the floods and mudslides and droughts789 and then ice melting and the sea791 level rising and the storm's getting stronger and the tropical diseases and climate migrants crossing international borders in larger numbers, they were dead right when they warned us about this, and so we need to pay more attention to them now. Here's one thing they say; if we don't take action, there could be as many as one billion climate refugees crossing international borders in the next several decades. Well, a few million has contributed to this wave of populist authoritarianism and dictatorships and so forth, what would a billion do? We can't do this, we could lose our capacity for self-governance. Already, we're seeing people driven from the places they've always called home, and we're836 seeing an expansion of areas in838 the world that are physiologically unlivable now because of the combination of844 heat and humidity, they're relatively small areas now, but if we don't act, they will expand to include most of India, large parts of Northern South America, the Philippines, Indonesia, Pakistan, the list goes on. The survival of our civilization is at stake, and it sounds dire, but it is dire. But again, the good news is we can reclaim control of871 our destiny if we summon873 the political will and the courage and the moral courage to do877 it. You know, there's a European politician, Claude Juncker, who said we all know what to do, we just don't know883 how to be reelected if we do it.885 Well, this is why grassroots pressure from people who understand how high the stakes are is the critical element, and the good news again is people are rising up and demanding action. Your news CNN poll shows that more than 3/4 of Americans, including a majority, 76% of independents and more than half of the Republicans support action, we just have to break the political power that the fossil fuel industry has exerted with its fixers and its lobbyists and its bags of money and921 its colleagues, but we can do this, Jake, we can do it.
926 Vice president Al Gore, always a pleasure. Thank928 you so much for your time today, sir.
PACHECO - Great. Thank you very much for listening to that, I wanted to share these two clips with you today because of the work that you all do, your work is so extremely important. I wanted to share that to sort of put what's at risk on the table as we're going forward because I think as much as we have done as a legislature, which is quite significant, and as much as administrations have done under the Baker administration and certainly now with the992 Healey Driscoll administration appointing the first climate Chief, and the goals that are put out there and the recent reports that the administration just released, and, my office has been going through them, and I know that Senator Barrett's office has been doing it as well, and Senator Rush was reading through and trying to understand, Secretary, or Chief Hoffer is essentially saying we need to come to grips with some of the costs around this. How are we going to finance the climate financing that needs to be put in place to actually make the difference that's needed for all of us so we can limit the risk going forward.
And before I have, Nima come up. I just wanted to have senator Barrett be able to, announce 1 other, events that will take place. I think it might be in this room on 17th January with David Abel.
SEN BARRETT - Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. We are going to be pleased to follow-up on today's hearing, and I'm very grateful to you for having it. With a showing of a movie made by David Abel, who often writes about climate and energy questions for the Boston Globe, an independent film as well, and he's done a remarkable documentary on the threats of rising oceans for the seaport. And by extension for other areas of Greater Boston, I think just yesterday or so, there was a document issued here. I think Emily, you were featured in it that has to do with a proposal of, I think, construction on Morrissey Boulevard or in that area. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
And what was the address that I want to be sure? In any event, you were a star.
I want you to
WAS
BARRETT - The threat to the seaport is dramatic and is near term, and to see it filmed in the dramatic fashion that we saw that1147 clip today really brings the point home. We are trying to bring as many people from the executive branch and the legislature into this room to view David Abel's coverage of what rising ocean levels and climate for 10 for Boston's newest neighborhood, and sadly about the lack of planning that has gone into preparing for a day that's relatively close at hand. So that will be on 17th at 10 o'clock here, and you're all invited. Please spread the word, and, thank you for letting me make that announcement, and I look forward to today's hearing.
PACHECO - Good, thank you very much, Senator, and I look forward to that. The writings that David has done over the years just been unbelievable, and the research that has gone into it is so so important. I think that many times, art or film generate the emotions that we need to get the urgent action we need to have implemented, done much more quickly, as opposed to waiting too long. When I Chaired post audit the last time, we put out a report, and it was called the cost of inaction, and I would ask you to take a look at it, it's on the state website, the cost of inaction. We looked at the costs of not doing anything on climate and how we continue to pay higher prices down the road. When you start looking in that shot clip, we were talking billions of dollars throughout the US, I think it was over $25,000,000,000 in 2023 alone, and that money just doesn't grow on trees, that's coming from other places, budgets, somebody's budget, federal budget, state budget, local budget. Those monies are being redirected away from the appropriation authority that they were given to try to meet the emergency needs. The person that is at the heart of that every day here in Massachusetts is Don Bradley, the director of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, and I'll call her up at this time with anybody she would like to bring up with her from MEMA just to give us a little bit of a presentation as to what's happening at MEMA these days in the context of what we have just gone over.
DAWN BRANTLEY - MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY - Thank you. Good morning, Chair Pacheco, ranking member Fattman and members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting MEMA here today to discuss climate resiliency, and, most importantly to us, how that overlaps with emergency management. As many of you know, my name is Dawn Brantley, I'm the director of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency or MEMA, and we really appreciate the opportunity to come and present on what we have seen and experienced over the past few years. MEMA is the Commonwealth's agency tasked with ensuring that the state is prepared to withstand, respond to, and recover from all types of emergencies and disasters. This agency falls within the executive office of public safety and security. With me today is Pat Carnevale, MEMA's deputy director, in the back is Simon Van Leeuwen, MEMA's assistant director for mitigation and recovery, and then next to me, who you'll hear from shortly is Marybeth Groff, our hazard mitigation and climate adaptation coordinator. As a team, we work 24/7 to ensure that agencies, cities, towns, residents, and visitors across the Commonwealth have the support that they need before, during, and after disasters. As you are likely aware, MEMA, we are not staffed with climatologists, so while we cannot say definitively whether events we respond to are directly or indirectly linked to climate change.
What we can share with you is what we have experienced, how it compares historically, and overviews of the mitigation plan and program, response and recovery programs, including the gaps that we've identified and preparedness response and recovery at the state and local levels. Since its creation in 1950, the scope of emergency management's mission area has expanded from preparing for and responding to nuclear attack. A wide variety of natural, technological, and human caused disasters, including most recently, homeless sheltering. In the past two years alone, what you see highlighted in red, Massachusetts has experienced the largest public health emergency in a century. Cyber incidents, coastal and inland flooding, hazardous material spills, droughts, severe storms, dam failures, transportation accidents, wildfires, extreme temperature events, coastal erosion, tornadoes, and tropical storms. That is quite a list for 24 months.
BARRETT - When did you just have nuclear? What were those years, do you have?
BRANTLEY - In 1950, the agency was created as a civil defense agency around the concept of a nuclear attack, and since then, all of these other mission areas have been added to the emergency management mission statement. Nationally, emergency management, we are experiencing more billion-dollar disasters than ever across the country, according to data you see here provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the US Department of Commerce. As of November of 2023, there were 25 separate $1,000,000,000 disasters just this past year, including three in New England. According to NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, from 2011 to 2019, a span of nine years, the US experienced $37,000,000,000 disasters, which is an average of just over four in a year. In 2020, the US experienced 22. In 2021, we had 20 more. 2022 saw $18,000,000,000 disasters, and then 2023 as noted at 25. The national three-year average has risen from $6,000,000,000 disasters a year to 21 a year in just 13 years. Narrowing that down to the Northeast, 2011 through 2019 brought the Northeast $14,000,000,000 disasters over nine years, an average of 1.5 per year. Compared to 2020 through November of 2023, which is less than half as many years, we had $32,000,000,000 disasters in the Northeast, which is an average of eight per year.
This chart from NOAA shows the ratio of which types of disasters cause the most financial damage nationally with severe storms, exclusive of tropical cyclones, leading the counts in the dollar figures. Although the data provided so far has been in terms of dollars, the real world impacts those dollars represent cannot be overstated. This color-coded map that's plain in the corner is from NASA's Scientific Visualization studio and it displays a progression of changing global surface temperature anomalies. So normal temperatures are shown in white, higher than normal is red, lower than normal is blue. The final frame presents the five-year global temperature anomalies from 2017 to 2021. So, as you watch this play, think back to the summer of 2022, when Massachusetts experienced an extraordinary brush fire season that run well into November and had impacted every corner of the state during those six months. The summer of 2023 followed with repeated flooding and tornado events across the Commonwealth. While I sometimes kid, about the upcoming summer being a summer of frogs at locust, the increase in the frequency, intensity, and duration and changes in location of emergencies and disasters really is no joke. I do not expect these changes to stop or to improve, I expect it to continue and to worsen. MEMA applies strategic foresight to our mission, and as a result, is actively and aggressively preparing for the future, that the data and our experiences are telling us is coming. I'd like to turn this over now to Marybeth Groff, who is MEMA's Hazard Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Coordinator to talk about the resilient Mass plan and climate resiliency.
MARYBETH GROFF - MASSACHUSETTS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY - Chair Pacheco and community members, thank you very much for having me here. As Dawn said, I am the hazard mitigation and climate adaptation coordinator at MEMA, and I oversee the state's hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plan, which is now referred to as the resilient Mass plan. I co lead this work along with EEA, we co lead both the work and the resilient Mass action team which is the implementing body for the resilient Mass plan. So, what is the resilient Mass plan? So, every municipality in the country is required to have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan in order to be eligible for pre and post disaster funding through FEMA. Now this plan must be updated every five years, and then every state in the country, the emergency management agency is responsible to update and make use of that plan, and in Massachusetts, it is MEMA. We work very closely with EEA on that. Like I said, we co lead the resilient Mass action team. In addition to every five years, the plan being updated, we also update the plan post any major disaster as needed as well as the RMAP meeting with the RMAP quarterly, and we ensure that the plan is being implemented. We also do an annual review and update as needed. Prior to updating the 2018 state hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plan, Massachusetts conducted a climate change assessment, and that was released in 2022. That climate change assessment looked at five different sectors.
As you can see; health and human services, infrastructure, the natural environment, the economy, and governance, and those five sectors were analyzed across seven regions displayed on the map. One of the key findings of that climate change assessment were high priority impacts. Before you is a list of the most urgent of those priority impacts and this climate assessment and these actual impacts were the foundation of the 2023 update of the 2018 plan, which then became the resilient Mass plan, it was rebranded in 2023. So, over 18 months, we went through a planning process to update the 2018 state hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plan. That plan was expanded upon and improved, and we were one of the first states in the country to actually combine our state hazard mitigation plan with our climate adaptation plan that was in accordance with executive order 569. That plan now has over 100 actions, as you can see, there's a straight down there. One of the actions is MEMA is actually going to conduct a study to look at the feasibility of establishing a state voluntary buyback and acquisition program for local communities, that projects already underway.
BARRETT - Could you talk about what that would entail?
Yeah.
If I could interrupt you just because of technical difficulties, we're on slide deck 16, page 16. Thank you.
Do you have a question? Sorry.
0, 0, 0, yeah. No. Thank you, Michael.
BARRETT - I just wanted you to spell out what the acquisition program is about in a few more sentences, are we talking about the potential acquisition of private homes as well as of open space along the coast?
GROFF - So primarily, you know, residential homes, currently, MEMA through FEMA programs does have a buyback program. It is very small at this time, and it's very complex. So, we're going to hire a vendor, and they're going to lead us through the feasibility study to look at other programs around this country. New Jersey has a program, Norfolk, Virginia, there's districts in North Carolina. We're also going to have them look at the wind mitigation program in Florida, and we're going to have them look at gap areas of improvement. What would a program look like in Massachusetts? And it's going to result in a set of recommendations to help us establish a program that would best support local communities to one, be able to find funding for these types of activities, but also the technical assistance to help them because it is a very complex process.
BARRETT - One additional question, although perhaps it can wait, Mr. Chairman, we read constantly about how insurance rates are rising for properties that are difficult to insure and have even perhaps experienced multiple losses due to their location. But in the end, nothing really seems to change, everything seems to get rebuilt. The insurance rates generate market signals, but the market signals don't seem to be changing behavior, they haven't risen the intensity perhaps that would be required to change the behavior of the individual homeowner or property owner or buyer. Are the market signals strong enough? Are they influencing human decisions? Or does insurance effectively provide a kind of buffer that increases what we would call moral hazard? The tendency to take risks that are perhaps not in the public interest. So, I'm interested in why this whole idea of the un insurability of properties never seems to result in any behavior change, or at least none that's been documented in a reliable or reassuring way.
Thank you very much for that question.
And also before you answer,
next after MEEMA, we have, Gary Anderson, commissioner division of insurance.
That's what I thought. That's why on the agenda specifically
But I'd be interested for that purpose, you know. So, yes, but if you have a reaction, please.
GROFF - That honestly is beyond my scope, I really don't have the context to it.
PACHECO - That's why we invited the commission because I agree with the Senator, what's starting to happen and we're starting to see it in different parts of the country, where people in their property are finding out that they're not going to be able to get insurance.
BARRETT - Or are they? I've got an open question about whether they're really finding that out or whether the day of reckoning gets postponed again and again and again because of the availability of buffers of some kind.
So get ready for commission Anderson in a few minutes. So, do you want to continue?
A few more slides.
Yeah.
GROFF - In addition to the buyback action that I spoke about, there are over 100 actions in the plan that address many different aspects of natural disasters. So extreme storms, we look at actions that are going to leverage current government structures and toolboxes that we have existing now. It's going to help us better plan, to help us better regulate and demonstrate, as well as convene, communicate, and prioritize our commitment as a state and as the Commonwealth to reduce risk to natural hazards and to the impacts of climate change. Many of the actions in the plan are already underway. All of the actions are found online, on the resilient Mass plan action tracker, and that is just one printout. So, any user can go in there and there's many different parameters that they can search by, whether the Executive office, priority lead agencies, all of that information is online, and2250 it will be updated on a regular basis. So, to recap, this is a living plan, it is designed to reduce risk to the impacts of natural hazards allowing the Commonwealth to adopt to changing climate with extreme storm events due to these changes. I want to thank you very much for your time and your attention today, and pending any questions, I'm going to hand it back over to director Brantley.
BRANTLEY - Today, citing the Robert Woods Foundation's National Health Security Preparedness Index which looks at indicators of readiness for disasters, disease outbreaks, and other large-scale emergencies identified Massachusetts as the best prepared state in the country in 2019. This is a tremendous commentary on our efforts in investments and preparedness, but do still remain, and those gaps are only increasing as climate change increases. The frequency, duration, and intensity of weather-related emergencies and disasters. When measuring changes in response over time, we typically look at emergency operations center activations and use of overtime within the agency. Over the past 10 years, the number of times that the state emergency operation center, the SEOC, was activated for a disaster response has remained largely consistent. But activations of our regional emergency operation centers show a 91% increase over 10 years. This is important and compelling because the SEOC is only activated for substantial disasters, which have impacts across much of the state and which require coordination of state response activities2350 and resources.
The regional SEOCs, however, are activated anytime2354 there are significant impacts to localities. So the data on response operations illustrates that gap disasters, disasters that exceed local capabilities to respond and recover, but do not reach the threshold of the federal disaster declaration are increasing in frequency and hitting the Commonwealth particularly hard. This increase in frequency of gap disasters has a tremendous impact on cities and towns and those of us who directly assist them. In July 2021, MEMA published the results of a year long assessment of statewide emergency management needs. The statewide emergency management needs assessment report, SEMNA. The comprehensive assessment looked at all levels of government Emergency management sectors across the Commonwealth to identify the most common and pressing needs for the entire industry. So, the report identified a variety of needs, but I want to highlight three particularly relevant for this hearing. First, the SEMNA report identified the need for more robust support to regional and local emergency management programs. Specifically identifying NEMA's regional office program2421 is providing effective regional collaboration and being consistently responsive to municipal emergency management needs.
MEMA's regional offices provide direct and consistent assistance to and support of local emergency management agencies throughout the emergency management cycle, and MEMA has invested time, technology, and funding into this program to ensure it continues to meet the needs of our local partners. Future growth of this program will have the most significant impact on the state support of local emergency management agencies during preparedness response and recovery. Second, the seminar report also found that the average number of full-time emergency management employees at the local level is zero, with approximately half of reporting municipalities having only volunteer emergency management directors. In fact, the assessment reported that 74% of emergency management directors also have responsibilities such as being fire and police chief. Third and finally, the assessment found that the average annual budget for a local emergency management agency from all sources is a mere $5,000 per year, that level of funding is far too small to support development and operation of a comprehensive and fully effective emergency management program. Additionally, many of our local emergency management agencies only source of funding is the federal pass-through grant, EMPG or Emergency Management Performance Grant, which I highlight because this is an area that Commonwealth can directly improve for the municipalities.
MEMA is the recipient of FEMA's EMPG grant and passes through funds from the grant to cities and towns as subrecipients. This grant is distributed to states based upon a population-based formula, over which we have no control or influence. The grant is typically about $7,000,000 to $7,500,000 annually. Although occasionally, as you see in 2021,2537 the federal government will supplement a single fiscal year of the grant. Over the past 10 years, MEMA has passed through varying portions of EMPG dependent upon the amount needed to cover our own operational cost. As operational costs increase, which can be expected year over year, and as the state's preparedness response and recovery needs increased, but the budget does not, more EMPG will need to be taken from local emergency management, reducing their preparedness and their ability to respond and recover from disasters. The gap in funding and staffing seen at the local level is present within MEMA as well. MEMA is only funded for steady state of nonresponse blue sky, but consistently responds to local and regional incidents. Our mission areas have expanded exponentially and continue to grow, and the frequency of response operations and the consequent need to do more to prepare and mitigate are all increasing year after year.
You'll see in the top left corner, we have a 91% increase in response and a 51% increase in operational funding, 15% increase in the three-year average of overtime, but only a 6.5% increase in FTEs. To best2613 prepare the Commonwealth for the future,2615 emergency management in all sectors of the Commonwealth, MEMA, Department of Public Health, Mass DOT, DEP and others need to be supported, funded, and staffed to meet the increasing response demands. Hazard mitigation, which Marybeth addressed earlier, our plan provides an enormous return on investment, a tune of 300% return on every dollar invested in mitigation. Hazard mitigation creates safer, more resilient communities, reduces loss of life and property and reduces the cost of recovery to individuals, cities, and towns, and to the state. MEMA plays a large role in hazard mitigation, one of the largest among all state agencies overseeing the most mitigation dedicated federal funding at $120,827,808 in the past 10 years, and we are operating an extraordinarily successful and a comprehensive mitigation program. In addition to our responsibility for the state's hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plan, MEMA has built a very successful holistic program that provides direct assistance to cities and towns for planning, grant project applications and coordination with state and federal agencies.
MEMA's program includes comprehensive and forward-thinking support for local hazard mitigation that provides direct funding for environmental justice communities and funding to other communities through the hazard mitigation grant program for mitigation planning. This program has resulted in more communities having mitigation plans than ever before, and MEMA has brought in professional services to improve applications, including hiring a consulting firm with national mitigation experience, hiring a civil engineer as a MEMA full time employee and developing a multiyear pipeline of potential mitigation projects. The MEMA team has partnered with other state agencies in areas like flood risk modeling, EIS mapping, and data development. We collaborate regularly on the resilient Mass plan with EEA. MEMA is the state administering agency for FEMA's hazard mitigation assistance programs, which includes the hazard mitigation ramp program, which makes funding available through FEMA following a presidential major disaster declaration. FEMA funding is only available to eligible sub applicants in Massachusetts after a major disaster declaration. Most recently, we received approximately $3,600,000 in HMGP funding following the January 2021 snowstorm and has experienced 16 HMGP disasters since 2005.
So, in the past 10 years, the Commonwealth through this program has been allocated over $62,000,000 in funding. The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program is non disaster related to FEMA funding, it's available on an2787 annual basis and is nationally competitive. Typically, MEMA only applies for this funding under this grant to conduct home elevations or home acquisitions in coastal communities. In the past 10 years, the Commonwealth has been allocated almost $4,000,000 of flood mitigation assistance. The pre disaster mitigation program is a legacy program that was temporarily replaced by BRIC in FY 20. So PDM was designed to assist states, territories and2815 tribes and local communities2817 to implement a sustained pre disaster natural hazard mitigation program. Congressional appropriations, known as legislative earmarks, or congressionally directed spending began in FY 22 and have continued in FY 23. In the past 10 years, the Commonwealth has been allocated nearly $24,000,000 in legislative PDM awards. Then BRIC, the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Grant Program is a non-disaster FEMA funding source that is available on an annual basis and is also nationally competitive. The program generally supports large scale infrastructure or innovative hazard mitigation projects. Massachusetts' success with the BRIC program is evidence of how effective MEMA's mitigation program is although most states never receive BRIC funding, with only 22 projects selected in the first cycle and 53 in the second, Massachusetts has had projects selected in both BRIC funding cycles, with a total of $5,800,000 in BRIC funding.
This mitigation funding, which again totals more than $120,000,000 in the last 10 years can be used for a variety of disaster risk reduction measures, including but not limited to property acquisition, structure elevation, mitigation, flood risk reduction, and technical assistance. There should be a list of eligible project types in your slides as well. As many of you have seen and experienced in the preceding years, this hearing, the Commonwealth has been impacted by an increasing number of natural disasters. Local communities with limited emergency management funding have suffered the brunt of the impact for these disasters. FEMA2925 has worked to reduce2927 our risk through mitigation and to maximize the Commonwealth's receipt of federal funding through hazard mitigation grants and preparedness grants. But in order to prepare for the future and to ensure our return on investment through mitigation, we need to do more to close the preparedness response and mitigation gaps at the state and local levels. So, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and look forward to hearing any questions that you have.
Well, thank you very much. And I must say it was a very comprehensive overview of what your responsibilities of2959 the agency are in what you are doing, very impressive presentation that both of you have provided today. So, thank you very much for being with us. Any of the senators have any questions? Great.
Thanks, Jim.
GARY ANDERSON - Thank you. Question.
Yeah. A question? Yes. Yes. Go right ahead. Thank you very much. I'll just send out the insurance 1. We're waiting for that 1.
BARRETT - Thank you very much both of you for testifying. It is eyebrow raising and educational for those of us who are less familiar with your activities, so, it's been a good learning experience. Are there maps that exist available on your website or on the web of which communities have been impacted by disasters in Massachusetts over the last three or four cycles? I think you mentioned that, how many has Massachusetts been, victim to over the last three or four years, did you say four? in 2023.
BARRETT - And I know the flooding, for example, last summer in rural Massachusetts. So, Massachusetts communities have been beset by a number of these. I'm just curious as to whether there are lists of communities that have been defined as having been impacted by each of the three or four events in the Northeast of which you speak. I'm just curious as to which places have been hit?
BRANTLEY - So anytime there is a billion-dollar logistics, it's going to be a federal disaster declaration, a major disaster. So, the counties that are eligible are the ones that have met their threshold. That's by no means saying that's everyone that was impacted in an event, but that is a good indicator of where those disaster events are most impacted. So, when you look at Vermont's flooding last summer in New Hampshire, it impacted us a little bit less. Then you can look on FEMA site, and they will have a list of eligible counties and then what the damage total were. But again, that's not an exhaustive list of every impact, particularly for gap disasters, we can provide that. We have things like DCR maintains, a map of where all of the brush fires are and a few dozens. We have a map; we can easily map out where we have been asked to respond to and what those impacts might have looked like as long as they were reported to us. We can also provide data on the preliminary damage assessment, which is FEMA's official cost valid label, estimate the damage for events when they're asked to come in and do a damage assessment.
BARRETT - I just remember Governor Healey, for example, going out to the3137 Connecticut River Valley, I think Hatfield among other places within the last seven or eight months. Was that technically, the Vermont flooding in which you speak or was that a gap event for Massachusetts? I'm still trying to understand the typology a little bit.
BRANTLEY - Yes. So, that event did occur along with the flooding that happened in Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire. Each state has to stand on its own feet for a major disaster declaration.
BARRETT - I'm sorry, say that again.
BRANTLEY - Each state has to meet its own thresholds, so kind of stand on its own feet as far as damage impacts. So, if Vermont has significantly more, they may receive a major disaster declaration,3181 but if we have fewer damages and our threshold is different3185 than Vermont or New Hampshire, then we have to stand on our own damages. So, they were similar storms, the impacts were very different, the threshold for a major disaster declaration last summer for the state was $12,440,000. Meaning, statewide, we had to validate $12,400,000 in damages and eligible costs.
BARRETT - Did that happen?
BRANTLEY - One of the highest in the country. It did not happen for any of the events. We have requested a major disaster declaration for September 11th, but may not meet that threshold.
BARRETT - September 11th?
BRANTLEY - I'm sorry, September 11th floods that impacted Leominster, North Alvaro, Princeton. None of those events came close to the threshold for us.
BARRETT - And then they didn't qualify as, I guess I don't quite understand the gap piece, that definition.
BRANTLEY - So the gap actually is my term. It's what proceeds the ability to respond, financially or response, but it doesn't hit that threshold through the disaster deck. So, there's no reimbursement from the feds.
Thank you very much. Thank you, mister chairman.
PACHECO - Just a follow-up to that question, and it's more directed at the local level. You're dealing with cities and towns that are reaching out to you, etcetera, with the limited resources that they have. We went through onto the Baker administration, and into the Healey administration, vulnerability analyses that were done, and as a result of those vulnerability analysis, many projects were funded to try to avoid future risks and it's been a number of years now that we have been putting state dollars out the door, investing them and approving services at the local level, hopefully, depending upon those grant awards. So, one of the things3338 I'm curious about is the mapping again of what actually happened as a result of that policy initiative that we put in place to ensure competitively these communities would apply and look for the funding to take care of critical infrastructure needs that they could see coming down the road that was going to be a problem. So, we gave them some money, they went out, and supposedly, were supposed to fix this. I don't think we've ever got reports on it or anything, and I'm not sure exactly who is in charge3390 of working on that now, but it would be great for us, I think to double check what we've done and then revisit what we're going to do in the future based upon what we'll find in terms of the results. So, if there's anything on that that you've come across or you've worked with, I think, that you've worked the analysis that was done.
BRANTLEY - Sure. In regards to the funding that you are speaking to, I can say that many of the communities in Massachusetts have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan that looks at what storms, what types of hazards are they most prone to? Where are they most vulnerable to those hazards? And then what type of strategies can they do to mitigate future risks? So many of the communities who have those risk assessments in the state in the resilient Mass plan, we also conducted risk assessments for most of the state agencies, and so we're not of that process along with the climate assessment, we developed the actions that are now in its lane fast. So, there are several modes of risk assessments being conducted through the FEMA process, so, I'm not quite sure which program you're speaking to.
PACHECO - It's across the board. I mean, there's a number of different, for example, just with the high-risk dams and the adjustments, figuring out when they're going to be replaced, etcetera, and making sure that they did all of what was supposed to take place when those grant awards were done actually happened, that it did it happen. And if it happened, where are we? Where are the assessments going forward? I know inland in, I'm thinking about Central Mass, going up towards the mountain areas, when you look at some places in the Commonwealth where we had found out that it was going to be predicted, you'll have roadways that will wash out, and I believe there were grants that were awarded, so that we could take care of that and mitigate against what the risk would be coming down the road. I guess what I'm saying is that it'd be nice to see that on a comprehensive mapping system of where our investments went in, to limit the overall risk that was assessed before those investments were given out to those areas.
BRANTLEY - I do know through the resilient Mass plan, we are developing a set of metrics, we're hiring a vendor led by EEA to develop metrics for the resilient Mass plan to ensure that we are making progress, to3601 ensure that we are buying down risk. MEMA is also in the process of developing a loss avoidance3609 study tool, so to speak, to help us look at losses avoided. So, if in the past, we've mitigated these projects or increased these culprits or we've acquired, buildings that knocked them down and turned them into open space or elevated them, that will show us the next time there's a similar storm, the losses we avoided by doing that work. So, there are things in process.
PACHECO - Great, this is the last question. It was on this resilient Mass report. Because they list the number of different policy measures that involve MEMA, which ones of those that they list are the most urgent?
BRANTLEY - I mean, I would say that, one, maintaining the resilient Mass plan, maintaining the state mitigation plan is the number one priority because it really gives us a road map and3671 a view of where we vulnerable to. So that's our number one strategy. I would say that the acquisition of buyback program is another high priority for the agency and for the administration as well.
K. Good. Any other questions? There we go.
SEN RUSH - No. Just to your point, Chairman, because you said the goal of the legislature, we work on here is a general legislation with the budget processes. We always love to send the positive things back from the agent, any state agencies as to what I debate and final version of the budget went through. So it's always greatly appreciated. Information is power and certainly help for us moving forward, filling gaps and getting directions.
PACHECO - It also establishes some best practices out there too for communities that were not successful, but they're coming along with another grant application. Down the road, it can can be helpful. So, thank you both very, very much for your testimony. As you leave, I will say that we will be reaching out, again, director, just on3749 the, because I know on the migrant issue that our office was involved, a little bit with emergency shelter, during the Baker administration, a lot of that has moved now over to the executive office of livable Communities, I think it's a new title. Housing and livable communities. That's great, but we’ll ask everybody if they can remember exactly what Mr. Bore's comments were in the first clip, but as you heard him talk about it, and it's one of the reasons why I wanted to bring this up at this hearing. We've had all kinds of reactions throughout the state nationally, including3815 the congress hitting the Southern border, yesterday, over this migrant issue. Well, it's estimated that we're going to have 30,000,000 climate refugees by 2030, and is the vice president reference over billion by 2050th. So, we all better get started on putting some plans together as to how we're going to deal with these issues if we're not acting urgently enough to prevent that from happening in the first place, number one, and then secondly, what are the internal plans when something like a major natural disaster takes place where you had, I think, Cape Cod, I think. So, we'll get back in touch with you in writing, so we can get all of that in order to get a reaction. I believe there's some interest within the committee and within the Senate to have a separate oversight hearing. Just trying to drill down a little further on these issues and probably the executive for sort of, housing and local communities to come in and talk about this to begin setting up a strategy and a plan to be preparing. If these predictions are going to come anywhere close to happening, we better get planning because it's scary stuff.
So, Gary Anderson, commissioner, division of insurance. You are up.
And I know as you begin to prepare your presentation. I know that when we reached out to the office, a lot of people were concerned whether or not you'd have the ability on short notice to put together the right type of presentation, but there was no right type of presentation. It's just a matter of all of us trying to figure out what is happening out there in terms of climate costs, the financing around climate, the implication of the insurance industry, whether it is stable enough in a number of different areas, and not only in insurance, but also in banking. These are things we don't talk about enough, but we need and that's 1 of the reasons why we're here today. So, but thank you very much, commissioner.
Yeah. Thank you for having us. And, actually, we're, happy to do it to go share what it is that's going on in the sector.
GARY ANDERSON - MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF INSURANCE - So thank you, Chair Pacheco, Senator Barrett, my senator, Senator Rush. We're happy to be here, and thank you for the invitation to testify on climate resiliency and the intersection with insurance. I'm Gary Anderson, commissioner of insurance. To my right is, Rachel Davison, our first deputy commissioner and our former general counsel, and Jackie Horigan, who was our deputy commissioner for product regulation and innovation. Maybe before I launch into what is we are doing in our regulatory crew to go over the insurance sector here in Massachusetts and nationally and internationally. Before I launch into that, maybe I'll touch on, Senator Barrett's question. At the outset, I think it's a really critical question that's asked and what you mentioned, what would be in rates, and about what former vice president Gore said in the clip about what we're seeing, increase in, whether it's floods, hurricanes, wildfires across the nation.
You know, back in the mid-1970s, the legislature very forward looking, created within the division of insurance and expert group, and those are actuaries that are housed within the division of insurance, unlike anywhere else in the Commonwealth, who are trained, and their sole function is to review every single rate filing on the home insurance side, on the auto insurance side, to ensure that the projections that are being used, the assumptions that are being used are indeed reasonable. Trust us, you know, Senator Barrett mentioned what we're seeing in rates and what we've seen over a number of years because of some of these things are happening and because of climate risk, not fun for us to see when rates are indeed going up, we don't like to see that either, that's our own, but we also know that it's impacting citizens of the Commonwealth. I think to your point, Senator, I think this is why it's important. Senator Pacheco, you mentioned, Chief Hoffer, really appreciative that the Governor softened to name the first climate Chief. So, I think it's an opportunity statewide, as you've said, in over a number of years, to look at how we're adapting and how we're becoming more resilient because Senator Barrett, as you mentioned, I think the ultimate question was, are we doing anything about that? Right? Insurance is essentially signaling, like, here are the risks, should they be rebuilding in these areas for example?
BARRETT - So I am interested in the intensity of the market signals, so to speak, and whether they are creating any behavior change, not in the agency, but among property owners.
ANDERSON - Yes, and I don't know that I could necessarily put a real good thing around, but I can say that, I think that's why you see the need for statewide plans so that we develop adaptation and resiliency efforts to address that. I would say that we're very fortunate, and I'll get into this in some4272 of the testimony, but we're fortunate that we have4276 a lot of insurance companies that do business here that compete for the consumer's business. I don't know that we're seeing the action necessarily yet.
BARRETT - Which action? I'm sorry.
ANDERSON - Well, you're asking whether human behavior has necessarily changed, and maybe I have a full question or something a little bit that might help us understand that a little bit better.
RACHEL DAVISON - MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF INSURANCE - Anderson will get into a little bit about a national data call that we're working on, with other state insurance regulators, and that's going to provide us with some information about the availability of insurance. So, the data call is going to at least initially look back five years. So, it'll be able to give us more information about how things have been changing as we're seeing more and more of these billion dollar disasters year after year. So hopefully that data will help us understand what has been going in the market going on, and that will help us answer the questions that you're asking about changes in human behavior.
BARRETT - Thank you very much. Commissioner, you alluded to the fact that we have adequate numbers of companies at the moment covering Massachusetts, which could be contrasted perhaps with other states, contrast it perhaps with California. I don't know, perhaps with Florida. Can you talk about those comparisons and contrasts? Because those are our kind of market signal, aren't they? And they suggest that at the moment, the market doesn't perceive the risk here is being exorbitant.
ANDERSON - Yes, and, if you'll allow me, I'll get into that context in my testimony, but I will actually draw comparisons from those states that the signals are being sent. I couldn't help but also think of a relatively recent article that a former Massachusetts public official former federal official, Julie Kiam, who published, that I forget the publication, but it was essentially, what are your insurance companies telling? What are the signal they are sending, and are we heading those signals? So, I'm happy to delve into a little more of that. Maybe just to back up a little bit, just to describe what it is that we do. The division is charged with regulating the business of insurance within the Commonwealth. Our primary mission is to monitor the solvency of its licensees in order to promote a healthy, responsive, and willing marketplace for consumers who purchase the insurance products. To fulfill this mission, the division conducts continuous off-site monitoring and on-site examinations of the financial condition of insurance companies. We review and approve insurance policy rates and forms, and we license both insurance companies and producers as well as insurance adjusters. When necessary, we coordinate the rehabilitation of financially troubled companies, the takeover and liquidation of insolvent insurance companies.
The division also safeguards the insurance buying public by investigating and responding to consumer inquiries and complaints, enforcing state insurance laws and regulations through market conduct analysis and examinations and providing accurate and unbiased information regarding various types of insurance coverage through our website and assorted publications. As the regulator is ultimately responsible for the Commonwealth insurance sector, the division has been and will continue to be on the front lines of the climate related natural catastrophe preparedness and response. Protecting policyholders and maintaining well-functioning insurance markets. I would say here too, we very much appreciate our colleagues at MEMA who work closely with us with4496 our resident’s disaster, we're more than willing to lend a hand when they set up shop somewhere so that people have insurance questions. When we're confronted with natural and manmade disasters, the division proactively ensures the continuity of insurance coverage prompt payment of claims. This has been demonstrated through the bulletins we issued following, for example, tornadoes or gas line explosions and fires affecting Massachusetts residents. These bulletins have imposed moratoriums on rerating, cancellation, non-renewal, and the refusal to write, as well as requiring premium relief and claims handling flexibilities for affected policyholders.
We've also established emergency procedures for property adjusters handling claims after a natural or manmade disaster to facilitate a well-organized and effective response to consumers. Since 2016, we've conducted an annual pre disaster survey to facilitate timely communication and determine whether enhanced monitoring activities are required, including through supplemental data collection. We've been long committed to monitoring and addressing the impact of climate risk on policyholders and the industry. Perhaps no other sector has experienced that is more directly relevant to the hazards of weather, climate, natural environment than the insurance sector. So specifically on the Massachusetts property insurance market, there are many4583 factors enforced that impact property insurance4585 availability and affordability, including state values, reinsurance costs, vulnerability to catastrophes, inflationary pressures, and labor and material supply. Other variables that impact the frequency and severity of home insurance losses and contribute to its cost include population density, fire suppression capacity, such as response times and proximity to a fire station, and a working fire house, the regulatory environment, building codes, and the utilization of specialized building features and materials.
However, what4617 has been dominating the news, and this4619 speaks to a little bit of what4621 we've seen today, our national attention is the impact of recent natural disaster loss in creating property returns, availability and affordability challenges for a number of regions across the United States. So, the reasons for availability and affordability challenges do vary by market, as you noted, Senator. For example, in Florida, the frequency of litigated claims contributed to market stability concerns, and legislative forms have been needed to disincentivize frivolous claims and abuse of the rules that allowed for recovery of attorney's fees. Florida is also one of the most catastrophe prone regions in the United States and has suffered the effects of multiple devastating hurricanes contributing to the insolvency of a number of insurance companies with their domestic property market suffering underwriting losses every year since 2016, in the wake of hurricanes Irma, Michael, Adelia, and Ian. Then on the other side of the country, California has seen seven of the top 12 insurance companies in that state pause or restrict new business since 2022. The regulatory structure in California contributed to providing results and the contraction of the property insurance market there. To address the issues, reforms are being implemented by the California Department of Insurance, including the incorporation of reinsurance costs in rates and the introduction of forward-looking catastrophe models to improve the rate review process and ensure that insurance pricing aligns with the evolving risks associated with climate change.
One other state that's been in the news recently is Colorado and the availability and affordability challenges they face in high-risk areas that are prone to wildfire. To address the coverage gaps, Colorado legislature created a fair access to insurance4732 requirements plan, that's the fairest plan to serve as the market of last resort so that homeowners and businesses that are not able to secure coverage to the4740 voluntary market are able to buy property insurance. Here, I'll point out several of the differences between our market and some of those markets. The legislative reforms in Florida are intended to correct flaws in the system that allowed bad actors to benefit to the detriment of policyholders and cause instability in the local market. Massachusetts, like nearly every other model allows for the cost of reinvestment and forward-looking catastrophe models to be used in the development of premium rates. So, the risk presented in the property insurance market in California do not exist here either. Then lastly, unlike Colorado, Massachusetts has had a fair plan since 1968, which allows homeowners to obtain property insurance with replacement cost up to $1,000,000. There are approximately 90 companies riding home insurance in Massachusetts, which, as we said, creates competition within the market and offering consumers different options to secure the most appropriate coverage for their needs. As a demonstration of the strength and the competitiveness of our market, in 2023, we saw six new companies enter our home insurance market.
I hope that addresses some of the differences. Speaking more broadly on the approach to climate risk and resilience and what we're doing. Insurance, as you, Senators have noted continue to be a secret backbone to homeowners in Massachusetts and throughout the country. In the aftermath of storms, wildfires, or other natural disasters, insurance can help by aiding in recovery and rebuilding, but this underscores the importance of having a strong, stable insurance market. Improving climate resilience requires blending regional perspectives and coordinating actions across, Senator Pacheco has highlighted federal, state, and local governments. In the United States, insurance is regulated primarily by the states, and insurance departments across the states coordinate a national approach to regulating the insurance sector, and confronting shared issues through the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, otherwise known as the NAIC. As we all know, climate risk knows no borders, this is why we coordinate our work with all state insurance regulators through the NAIC. We recognize that the physical risks and transition risks that insurance companies face with climate change, and so state regulators have made climate risk and natural catastrophes and resilience a strategic priority of the NAIC because the insurance sector can be a key agent, and as we said, signaling or identifying, mitigating, and managing climate risk.
By coordinating climate risk and resiliency assessments, slow news and evaluation initiatives, each state has the information, policies, and tools that promote resiliency and ensure a stable insurance market for systems. So, in line with that strategic effort, in 2020, we state insurance regulators established a climate resiliency task force reporting to the NAIC executive committee. An executive committee leads on policy direction or standard creation direction. We are members of both the task force and the leadership executive committee. The task force serves as the coordinating body for discussion and engagement on climate risk and resiliency issues including dialogue among4940 the state insurance regulators,4942 industry, and stakeholders. The task force has been divided into, projects among several work streams, so I'd like to highlight just each of those work streams or the work that goes on there. The first of which is known as the climate risk disclosure work stream. So, the NAIC has actually had a climate risk4960 disclosure survey4962 since 2010, recognizing a clear and consistent climate disclosure is an important process to prepare public, governments, and insurers for the risk posed to the insurance sector by climate change impacts. The division joined the disclosure of work4975 stream loan uniformity in reporting requirements and advanced modifications to the survey to align with the guidelines and recommendations of the financial stability board's task force on climate related financial disclosure, that's known as the TCFD.
As a result of this work in 2022, the NAIC adopted a revised climate risk disclosure survey that actually aligns with the TCFD, which is the leading international standard for climate reporting in the insurance sector. Kudos to, first deputy commissioner Davison, she was a key player in making sure we transitioned to the TCFD aligned disclosure. We partnered with 14 other insurance departments to collect data from insurance companies writing more than $100,000,000 in premium, and then last5023 year, we increased it to 27 participating states covering more than 85% of the US insurance market. So, the goal of that survey is to provide regulators with information about the assessment of risks posed by climate change to insurance companies, and the actions the companies are taking in response to their underwriting or their understanding of climate. Specifically, the survey allows us, the division to better understand how insurance companies are considering and addressing climate change and climate risk in their business operations, underwriting and reserves. So, in coordination with state insurance regulators, two reports have been issued on the TCFD aligned survey.
First series some of you may be familiar with, and the California Department of Insurance published an analysis that was titled Climate risk management in the US insurance sector, an analysis of climate disclosures, that was back in, July of 2020. And for those that are unaware, SERIES is actually a Massachusetts based nonprofit, organization working with capital market leaders to solve sustainability challenges. I know we, at the Massachusetts division of insurance have been very appreciative of their partnership with state insurance regulators across the nation, they've done incredible work in this effort. So, this theory's analysis is the first comprehensive attempt to review and describe the contents of this TCFD, the Blind Climate Disclosure survey, for the insurance sector. The report's intended to encourage improvement and the comprehensiveness of the climate related disclosure of future years, and provide insights that may be valuable to insurance regulators and other stakeholders. More recently, in just October, the Society of Actuaries and the NAIC Center for Insurance Policy and Research, which is known as CIPR, published a report titled analysis of the US insurance industry climate risk financial disclosures. So, what their report summarizes is insurers' efforts to govern and manage risk related to climate change. It shows how the disclosures vary across and within lines of business. So, the analysis consists of three components, they'll highlight that. One is the high-level qualitative scan and develop a general sense of the disclosure strengths and weaknesses.
Number two is a basic analysis that evaluates each insurance company's climate risk awareness and their progress in developing the technical capability. And then three, a granular analysis that assess each disclosure against features of the TCFD's reporting framework. Series in the California department as well as the Society of Actuaries and CIPR have committed to analyzing the submissions for reporting year 2022 so that we will have similar reports for use by regulators and stakeholders. So, the second work stream under that NSC task force, the climate resiliency task force is known as the solvency work stream. We're also a member of that work stream, and what we've been doing is evaluating the financial regulatory approach to climate risk and resiliency, recommending enhancements to our regulator solvency tools, developing stress tests, scenario analysis, to evaluate potential financial exposure to both physical and transition risk impacting the climate change, and also determining the methodologies for quantifying insurance company's exposure to climate related investments. So, we regulators have not updated what's known as our risk-based capital formula, RBC formula to include specific charges for hurricane, earthquake, and most recently for wildfires.
We used that RBC formula to monitor the capital adequacy of insurance companies to ensure that they're able to pay claims. So, the state insurance regulators are also considering adding severe convective storms as a model loss for insurance companies to report as a separate pair. We're also in, as part of this work stream, considering updates to our NAIC's financial examination material. So, I mentioned at the outset how we do off-site examinations of the insurance company's financial condition, we're looking to add to that in our examination materials and guidance manual so that it reflects climate related risk within a solid financial solvency tool, as well as exploring how insurers are using the scenario analysis to assess climate related risk internally. To us ensuring that insurance carriers remain solvent and have sufficient claims paying capacity is a critical foundation fostering a healthy marketplace. So, the third, pre disaster mitigation work stream. On the NAIC's website, we have a very extensive set of resources with lists of mitigation measures that policyholders can take to reduce their risk of loss. State insurance regulators prioritize this effort because protecting consumers obviously begins long before a wildfire starts or the storm makes landfall. The states have been doing work with Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, that's an entity known as the IBHS. We recently signed a memorandum of understanding with them, and their work is based on strengthening building codes, what's known as our fortifying program has been spreading through several states in order to assist in those mitigation efforts.
We, obviously have a significant role in encouraging insurance companies support policyholder risk reduction and adaptation, both in addressing any barriers and encouraging adaptation support to promote affordability, and access to insurance. In Massachusetts, some insurance companies writing home insurance coverage give premium credits or discounts or reduce or eliminate wind deductibles when the homeowner takes certain loss mitigation measures, such as installing hurricane shutters, hurricane resistant glass, or a roof or foundation tie downs. With construction that complies with specific building codes or that meets IBHS certification requirements, some insurance companies5419 provide premium credits. And unsurprisingly, insurance companies are more likely to increase their capacity to coverage when policyholders take climate related, mitigation measures that reduce the risk of loss, in the event of climate related events. Insurance companies have also, recently started reporting an increase in the availability of actuarially sound data that reports at the municipal level, or community level resilience to climate related cause of loss, including, commercial catastrophe modelers' loss simulations and, ISO's building code effectiveness grade.
So by considering the actuarial data, insurance companies are progressively offering benefits in terms of mitigation efforts that are expected to reduce projected losses. The last fourth work streams, is the innovation and technology work and we, the division of state insurance regulators, continue to explore how parametric products, and community-based coverage might help resolve issues with coverage gaps created to natural disasters. The work streams heard about commercial products and coverage options for some of the more common perils like flood, earthquake and hurricane, as well as the secondary perils like excessive snowfall and extreme temperatures. So, through this work, we're better able to understand the role of insurance policy innovation and closing protection gaps and specific characteristics of innovative policies that may be relevant to insurance regulation. What I'd highlight is, the NAIC through our center for Insurance policy research has created a catastrophe modeling center of excellence, which provides education and training and regulator support for the review of catastrophe models. An important assessment, risk assessment for property insurance is Catlin, catastrophe models were developed in 1980s and saw increased interest following hurricane Andrew in 1992.
The insurance industry uses these catastrophe models to estimate probable for capital reserving and pricing purpose. The center of excellence works with cap modeling firms to understand how climate risk and changing weather patterns are or are not incorporated into their models and provide this information to state insurance regulators. By doing so, it enables state insurance regulators, including the division, to better understand the use of these models’ projecting risks and losses and identifying factors that could either increase or reduce risk. So, when we think about resiliency and sustainability regardless of the dynamics outside the regulatory entity, we need to keep in mind our role as insurance regulators. We're tasked with ensuring that we have a stable, sound insurance market. Our core functions relate to solvency and consumer protection so that's the lens we need to look through when we talk about climate issues and sustainability. Our job is to ensure that insurers are in sound financial conditions that can cover their responsibility including the payment of claims. We understand the risks which insurers may be exposed while the risks insurers may pose and how those risks are managed. To support our efforts, the division, along with our state insurance regulators plan to issue a national data call, as Rachel had indicated, and that will drill5629 down on potential protection gaps, especially when it comes to challenges around the availability of insurance.
This granular data will supplement the extensive financial data that we already explained, to understand the impact on insurance company solvency and investments. So, it'll allow us to assess the strength and resilience of the industry and how this translates to availability and affordability and coverage for consumers in some areas. The division is also part of the group of states scoping the data collection to identify regulatory issues and considerations in developing the data template to meet our specific needs. Thanks to Jackie for her contributions on that scoping exercise that we're in the middle of. The goal is to develop a long term, robust data, collection strategy to help us as regulators more nimbly respond to inquiries related to the property markets. The division plans to implement this regular data call to supplement but not to duplicate data that we already collect in support of our regulatory mission. You know, recognizing the climate risk is not simply a local or even national issue, the division is engaged in setting activities to assess and respond to climate risk, not only domestically through the NAIC, but also internationally through the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, that's known as the IIS, and the Sustainable Insurance Fund, that's known as the SIF. The IIS is in it is examining climate risk through financial stability risk assessment, the development of supervisory and supporting material and capacity building.
The IIS also provides a forum for members to share their experiences and understanding of insurance supervision and insurance markets. There's the vice chair of the IIS executive committee, we're able to lead in that standard setting discussion. The SIF is an international group of regulators committed to finding sustainability solutions through5746 collaborative action on climate issues, including research on emerging risks, knowledge sharing on supervisory practices, high level policy engagement, and joint supervisory experience. The division is a member of SIF along with, just seven other state insurance departments. So, Senator, I can go through, before I get to the conclusion, we have a decent amount on flood insurance, which is really critical component. As5773 you may know, we don't oversee flood insurance, it's not part of your basic home insurance policy, it's a program created by the National Flood Insurance program. I'm happy to go into more detail on flood, I want to be mindful of time too. So, I can do that or I can skip that part knowing that it's not under our regulatory purview, but we're generally familiar with the program, up to you.
Do you like those questions? Yeah, I think maybe we just have some questions.
BARRETT - Thank you all. This has been interesting, and it's always an education to a generalist to hear just how complex your work is, and how many directions you're extending yourselves for us. Can you give us5826 a rough sense as to how rates have increased or not over the course of some time period, a decade, let's say or five years. Specifically again in the property area compared to a reference point inflation, let's say. Have rates outstripped inflation within particular time periods? So what do you project for the future?
ANDERSON - Yes, I'm happy to try to address that, Sarah. As you kind of know at the outset about rates and changing human behavior and signal that insurance companies send, I very much appreciate what our colleague is doing in California because nobody wants to see their what's happening in markets like that or Florida happen anywhere. I think the challenge that we have, any division has is be making sure that, and I think this is part of what, you know, Julie Kian was noting in her article, making sure that the rates out there are reflective of the risk. That is one of our challenge, right? Because sometimes that can mean5912 that may be rates going down, but during times like this, that could mean rates might be increasing. Of course, when you're talking averages, I mean, for some, it may go down a little bit.
BARRETT - No, I'm talking about average for the state for the individual property.
ANDERSON - I think what we've seen over the last few years is the weighted average is probably under 10, it's probably around 9 or so that you've seen.
BARRETT - What does that mean, 9% a5944 year?
ANDERSON - Yes, and it depends because not every insurance company.
DAVISON - Most recently. I think we'd have to go back to some of the data that we have to go beyond.
BARRETT - But you must know how much rates increase or not by the year.
DAVISON - We have a general sense. I don't have the numbers right in front of me, but we have that data readily available. We know that over the5970 last year, they've increased about 9% or so. Probably, not necessarily always tied to inflation because what goes into building an insurance rate is not just.
BARRETT - How about for the last five years, an annualized?
ANDERSON - I don't think we have that. I think what's happening, it's terrible, we can look into that. I think what what you see, right, is that, again, I want to be clear, like, the rate needs to I think what you saw in California to start the debate was there's nobody's indicating that if the rate cannot match the risk, we cannot write the product.
BARRETT - So the reason I ask isn't primarily because, although I certainly am concerned about the impact of increased rates on Massachusetts consumers, but I'm not asking for that particular purpose, quite frankly, I'm asking it because it's a rough indicator of increased risk could be attributable to things other than climate, but it's a surrogate for increasing or decreasing risk in accrued sense, one might think. So I ask not because I want to pound the table and complain about 9% rate increases, but because I'm interested in whether a cost, which I'm assuming rates are fair, I'm assuming they more or less reflect costs. So I want to know whether the costs using rates as a surrogate are going up for Massachusetts property owners at high rates, moderate ones or low ones?
ANDERSON - I think your assessment's fair. I think if it's a surrogate for what's happening in it's deciding generally, and the continued and increasing risk that we're seeing, I think that's a fair assessment here.
BARRETT - So let me repeat the question. 9% in some recent 12 month period, I don't know what the definition is, but let's say over three years, over five years, do you have a similar sense?
ANDERSON - Yes, and so I think we saw a slight uptick from the 2021 number to the 2023, from the 2020 to 2021. So it's probably tracking that at least the last three or four years, probably tracking that to some degree.
BARRETT - Tracking in excess of inflation?
ANDERSON - So, it is all of the costs, as you said, the cost mirror what's going on in society. So that is increasing climate risk. It's reinsurance costs every year, so some markets harden, that can be a little bit cyclical, so that's up and down. It is building costs, right? It's supply chain demands, right? Those supply chain events, just watching the news this morning, but some shipping. I immediately thought I saw some of the shipping concerns of the Middle East. Are there materials on there that are going to impact whether it's going to impact cost here, does it impact cost related to home the replacement cost, right? So it is, yes, it is a reflection, those rates are a reflection6186 of the costs that we're seeing generally, inflation included in society.
PACHECO - Just a couple of quick questions; you had mentioned reinsurance briefly, to what extent in the reinsurance market do you see that part in the industry investing in mitigation with the built environment. There was a plan that was supposed to be going forward in the art state where the reinsurance industry was actually a big part of the financing of decarbonization pathway, in some of the cities, and they were doing that as a positive business investment, I mean, with their resources, but also, they were doing so because it ended up lowering the risk longer term. Do you see any opportunities there for the state and the administration working with the reinsurance sector, looking at the climate finance tools that need to be put together to invest in the decarbonization of the built environment here in Massachusetts.
ANDERSON - Yes, I'm not familiar with the New York one, but I would say there is a shared interest. You're exactly right that there's 100% of shared interest because if you're doing something to create to adapt, to be more resilient, you're certainly going to decrease costs on the back end is the goal. So, having had discussions with them, there's certainly a desire to collaborate in some kind of public private partnerships.6354 I think Boston is still ongoing with a global insurer, Zurich, doing some of this work, we've had discussions with Chief Hoffer about how we can get the insurance companies involved in communities more as we think about adapting and building resilient communities. So there's certainly yes, I think in we're happy to be a partner in6385 that as well, and have been in discussions over the6387 years with them to do just that. So,6389 we would6391 have to look into the New York one, but I know that we talked to Zurich, the Democrats, about what they're doing, with city farms.
PACHECO - Good. I think it's in the Chief's report that she put out, which was very well done, I think, and, we were trying to get her here to work with her schedule to have her come in at another time. It's because this is also in the the division's jurisdiction to take a look at this and assess risks and figure out what might be a better way to go going forward in terms of an overall plan. So I thank you for being here. It's one of the reasons why we wanted you to come in, there's a lot more going on in your testimony than I had expected. So that's very good news6477 that you're working on these issues, so diligently because it's very important6483 that happened. We're also going to be reaching out to the division of banks because that's another piece of the puzzle that we want to make sure that they are also paying attention to what's happening there and what's going on with the national planning, around all of this, so we don't see whole portfolios of underwriters go down the tubes, when there's the right storm that hits, as we saw on the videos earlier, and all of a sudden, it takes out a whole piece of our economy. So, that's why this is important to start talking a lot more about climate finance, how you put all of this together, and I thank you6546 for your testimony.
If you could send us your testimony that get you prepared, that would be great. And if you have any slide decks or anything you want to share with us, we would like to have that, because this is, as I said at the outset, first in a series of a few hearings that we're going to have on this subject matter, and two of the individuals6584 that we definitely want to be talking to is, Chief Hoffer, who was very interested in coming here, something came up and couldn't get it done today, but it would be very good to talk about it because we need to put together a financial management plan to really invest in the types of things that need to be done like today with what is happening with the migrant issue, which is a state of emergency here now in Massachusetts. That could be as high as a $1,000,000,000 problem and that's as vice president Gore referenced, could just be the beginning of it all because these issues are not just things that are being dealt with at the national level, it's the international level as well. It just reminded me saying international level, you talked about being part of the international entity as well, and so what do you see? Because, I'm very much a fan of what I've seen the European Union do, in particular with climate policy, and I'm wondering and it's not fair to ask you today, but if you have any information on what they're doing relative to the policy on insurance and banking issues, any of those types of things. I'd be very interested in seeing what they're doing because they typically have been looking at this more long term and coming out with policies that have polluters paying and, making sure there's a way to assess that costs on polluters equitably and fairly, etcetera.
ANDERSON - Yes, we're happy to share that. As we mentioned, we've been a part of them since 2019, at the IAS, at the International Association specific to insurance. There are a number of things that we're doing there that are best practices. So put out papers, consultation papers, where stakeholders will weigh in so we can share certainly, those papers with you. I would say on the insurance aspect, I can't speak to stuff that's outside insurance or policy that insurance, but because it's managed here at the states, there are a number of similar things that we're doing at the state level and coordination across the state level that is going on in Europe specific to insurance. So, happy to share.
PACHECO - Again, on the New York piece, it's actually one of the individuals now that are involved with NICERA that is working with the reinsurance sector of the industry and trying to put together decarbonization strategies in the built environment. So anything you can get us back on that would be very interesting, because it's ways in which we can help finance, not just through governmental authorization, but putting together a strategy that encourages pieces of the private sector to invest in it as well, both in the case of reinsurers to lower their risk, but also could be in good investment in terms of turning neighborhoods around and creating jobs and all of that. So, thank you very much for your testimony.
Yeah. Thank you, senator. Thank you.
Next, I'd like to bring up Lisa Barry England, director of the office of Coastal Zone Management.
Brechtin, nice to see you.6875 Thanks.
Thank you.6879
Knew that I had a little depth of work done this morning as luck would have it. So the left side of my mouth is a little funky.
Okay. As long as I can start tooling, we should be good. We have beyond that. Thank you.
Again, thank you for having me here. Let me know how you'd like to work. You'd like to just have me launch into something
Yes. Please go right ahead with your testimony that you have prepared for today's hearing. And just so you all know, this is a hearing that's also virtual so that there are, people that are
listening in and, with us as well as, members of the press that are also doing the same thing. So thank you.
LISA BERRY ENGLER - EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS - Well, good afternoon. Again, thank you for inviting me here to testify regarding climate change impacts on the Massachusetts coast. As you introduced me, my name is Lisa Berry Engler, and I'm the assistant Secretary and director to the Coastal Zone Management at the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. In Massachusetts, we have more than 1500 miles of shoreline spanning 78 communities, that's a huge and wonderful resource. The coastline is made up of historic and busy ports and harbors, thriving and diverse salt marshes and estuaries, beloved parks and well traveled beaches. But unfortunately, our coastline is becoming increasingly vulnerable to climate change and climate change induced impacts. The Commonwealth is already experiencing these impacts of rising sea levels combined with more severe storms and increase in global erosion. The 2022 Mass Climate Change Assessment identified our state's most urgent impacts which include emergency response delays and evacuation disruptions during extreme storms, and through the climate change assessment, we also identified that coastal flooding will likely damage low lying roads and railways thus affecting our transit service. It is through the climate change assessment we clearly and quite broadly and publicly articulated7032 our vulnerability and the very real threats to our way of life here in the Commonwealth.
But I just want to say that we at CZM have been working in this space for quite some time, and we're no stranger to these threats. In fact, we've been working and developing data and information to help provide information to other agencies and to the public on how best to address these threats. As the lead policy planning and technical assistance agency on coastal and ocean issues for the state, CZM's programs provide information, strategies and tools to help communities and people who work and live on the coast address the challenges of erosion, flooding, sea level rise and storm surge. So I'm going to walk through a few examples of the type of data and tools that we have available, and then I'll start to walk through how we plan to use that culmination of data and tools and sort of these next steps that I think you've probably been hearing about. So my team and I are making great strides to understand these climate threats. For years we've been gathering the necessary data to provide invaluable resources for professional and public use. Our sea level rise and coastal flood viewer provides interactive maps of flooding of critical coastal facilities and infrastructure. The viewer displays sea level rise, hurricane and FEMA flood zone maps. It also most recently, includes interactive maps reflecting the Mass Coast Flood risk model, which shows the extent and depths of flooding produced for 2030, 2050 and 2070. Future time horizons for sea level rise are due to and take into account continued high emissions greenhouse gases and storm surge associated with7153 the increased frequency and intensity of storms.
Also, our Massachusetts sea level7159 rise affecting marshes model or SLAM viewer is an interactive web based mapping tool developed to explore the potential aerial extent and distribution of coastal wetlands along the coast as they respond to four different sea level rise scenarios over time and where they may migrate in the future. So it essentially helps us understand how our coastal wetland resource areas may grow and change over time. CZM also created and actively contributes to the storm reporter tool, which maybe my colleagues at MEMA might have referenced. This is an online and mobile coastal storm damage reporting tool that enables rapid delivery of damage information, including geographic coordinates and photographs to decision makers and emergency management personnel in a timely manner. In fact, even just today, we're starting to talk about how we can activate our storm team to go out and collect information for the storm reporter tool, leading up to this weekend storm event that we're closely watching. So, you know, we have this wealth of data, this wealth of knowledge that we continue to keep updating and make available to the public. There are series of other tools and data that I didn't mention here, but we can follow-up and provide additional information. But, you know, we know that this is not enough, we need to be thinking about how to respond to these vulnerabilities more broadly, and that's really what I want to focus a little bit more in the rest of my testimony. We know that the challenges facing our coastal communities are too large for communities to handle on their own.
We also know that we can no longer respond to extreme weather events on a case by case basis. The ad hoc method is not adequate use of staff time for financial resources, so it's time to be more proactive. This is why in partnership with EEA, CZM is taking a step further to develop this holistic strategy which leverages the wealth of existing data and knowledge that I went through in the first part of7296 my testimony. The strategy is called resilient coast, echoing the resilient Mass plan and will inform how we address both near and long term impacts associated with climate change on our coast. Such a strategy was identified as a priority action within the state's resilient Mass plan to ensure that the state is prepared to withstand and rapidly recover from and mitigate natural hazard events along the coastline. So the Resilient Coast Initiative was formally announced and launched in November by the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor, which we were very excited to have that formal launch event, and it happened on the coast and even on a king tide day, which is a day of extreme high tide, so quite a fitting day. As part of this effort, as the Resilient Coast effort, we've convened a task force comprised of environmental, business, financing experts, and community leaders. I know colleagues from the Conservation Law Foundation are in today, and they are in fact a member of that task force. We're really looking to build on the expertise and the knowledge that we have in the Commonwealth to help inform a really robust and thoughtful plan strategy. We'll conduct extensive and equitable stakeholder and community outreach is part of this plan, involve the communities and stakeholders that truly represent diversity along our coast.
I don't just mean the diversity of populations, I also mean the diversity of type of ecosystems and development and vulnerabilities along the coast as well, and we're looking beyond city and town lines to delineate areas of regional vulnerability. We think we will call these areas coastal resilience districts and we're delineating these areas because we know that climate change and climate change impacts don't follow municipal boundaries and that we will be required to customize any sort of solutions to think more regionally and beyond just municipal boundaries. CZM is also growing our team to support this effort, so we're excited to hire a chief coastal resilience officer, and this person will dedicate their time to this effort to first developing the plan in this first six or eight months, but then also to be implementing the plans beyond. That's really the critical piece, well, the critical piece that really we need to have the vision for is how we'll influence what we figure out in the strategy in this first six to eight months because that is what will take coordination across Secretariat, across agencies, across our 78 coastal communities. As part of the strategy development, we will evaluate and recommend regulatory and policy mechanisms to implement and realize this more resilient coast. I know, Chief Hoffer is especially very interested in this piece about the regulatory and policy implications of the strategy, and we anticipate that through this process, we will develop recommendations for regulatory and policy changes and update. As you are well aware, we were just talking about funding is a really key component of this resilience work, how much will this cost, and we don't know how much it will cost yet.
There are efforts underway to start thinking about that, but we know it's going to be a lot. So EEA and CZM have been pursuing resilience efforts for a long time now. We have the EEA municipal vulnerability preparedness programs and then we also have CZM's coastal resiliency grant program. The CZM program has funded cities and town since 2014 with $46,000,000 to first assess coastal vulnerability and then address those vulnerabilities, and similar to the MVP program has done a has handled a robust amount of dollars in a shorter time frame. As part of the resilient coast initiative, and ongoing EEA work, we're also going to investigate new financing strategies for how to fund this risk. We know that there are other states in our nation that are thinking about unique and strategic funding mechanisms, and we want to be able to evaluate those, how they work in those other states, and if they could work in Massachusetts and think about how we can bring them here to the council. But in addition to sort of the existing framework we have with our grant programs, well, it's better on state grant programs, and then also thinking about unique financing mechanisms that we could bring to the Commonwealth, we're also doing our best to go after those federal dollars that are coming in through the White House and the new initiatives there.
So in that, in the last few years, we've really been very fortunate and very successful in bringing dollars to the Commonwealth. CZM this year procured money for two coastal restoration projects. We've also applied for additional restoration dollars for two projects this year, and then we are also working on a team Massachusetts proposal that's a total of $73,000,000 to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that will produce and bring in dollars that will put together a framework of coastal restoration. So the proposal is doing big right and we're really optimistic about our chances. So we at CZM are committed to bringing our collective experience and expertise together, working collaborative with our coastal communities, environmental justice populations, academic and non profit partners, businesses and other interested participants to design and implement this resilient coast strategy. We know that this is a really critical juncture for us in Massachusetts and we need to be thoughtful and proactive in how we plan our actions and how we fund those actions. So, I'll wrap up with that and take any questions. But wanted to just close with that, the resilience strategies timeline is that hopefully it will be pumped up by the end of this fiscal year, and then we'll look to implement that.
well, thank you very much, and thank you for being here. I have been a big fan of CZM for many, many years, going back to the days when, Rich Delaney was in was in the house there, for a7701 number of years, and it's amazing the commitment and the,7705 the passion of all the staff and the outstanding work that, you all do.
PACHECO - So thank you very much for your work and, in particular, working with the Healey administration and the federal side in terms of capturing those federal funds, because I think that will be very crucial as we go forward, trying to have Massachusetts, try to get as many of those dollars heading in our direction as possible because in most cases, we're ready for the applications, and we can be very competitive. So, I thank you for that work.
Thank you for your support.
Yeah. Thank you. So, I'm going to take just literally a 5 minute break, and then I'm gonna be asking,
Diana and, Orin, Emily Norton, and Leo Robbins, to join me on a panel, and we will go through that part of the hearing because I think it's important to hear from the advocacy community as well, in terms of where we are, where everybody thinks we need to, need to be.
PACHECO - So, it's great to pat ourselves on the back with some of the legislation we've done and that type of thing. But, is also about implementation of a lot of this that needs to get done as quickly as possible. With the financial consequences that are out there now, it could be very easy to slow things down a bit, and so we don't want to see that happen. So, thank you very much.
I'll be right back.
Notes to the Diana from CL Yes. I touched on Sorry about that. Alright. Because I'm my breathing down here. I'm saying, wait a minute. Alright. So,
yes. If7882 you could go ahead, I think Scott had gone over a little bit of what we were talking about. And, of course, you've been here through the whole, the whole, hearing. And I want to thank you very much for the patience, of yourself and everybody that's still waiting to testify, coming here today. But I think it's helpful for us to put together some of the testimony that you'll be, speaking to and being able to work with the administration on it as we go forward. So
Absolutely.
Thank you for having me.
DEANNA MORAN - CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION - Good afternoon. My name is Deanna Moran, I'm vice president for healthy and resilient communities at Conservation Law Foundation. CLF, as you know, is a regional environmental nonprofit organization that advocates for climate resilience among other things in the Commonwealth and across the new local region. I'm happy to be here today to voice both CLF support for all of the great work that both the legislature and the administration have done to address this issue and also to voice our concerns that in spite of this great work, we are not moving quickly enough on implementation to avoid the worst impacts from climate change and from these natural disasters. Climate projections predict that as we heard a lot today, these risks are growing and will continue to grow over the next several decades, so time really is of the essence. While the state faces many challenges in becoming more resilient to climate change, key drought among them, my remarks today specifically focus on the increase risks of flooding and storm damage. There are three urgent actions that we believe would better prepare our communities for these risks. We consider them to be fairly low hanging fruit, especially among the many recommendations that are in Chief8000 Hoffers report and it's like a Mass plan, I know you've read both8004 of those plans. It can be daunting to8006 think about how much we have to get done, how expensive it will be to do, and the three recommendations that I have for you today, like I said, I think we feel that they're pretty well hanging fruit and two of8017 them actually don't require any state funding to get started on.
Those include mandating flood risk disclosure and also resales, integrating climate science into our flood plan management and building standards, and establishing a voluntary state bio program for at risk properties. So, I was very excited to hear MEMA talk about that earlier. Before I discuss each of these recommendations, I'd like to provide a little bit of context for our current challenges. As you know, our existing flood plan management and building standards are inextricably tied with FEMA's flood insurance rate maps.8054 These are the flood maps that come to mind when you think of flood maps here across different areas, and they've historically been the predominant, if not the only source of information about flood risk for communities. They're also an important component of FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, which the division of insurance mentioned, that program has been the provider of flood insurance to homeowners here in this state and across the country. In fact, if you live in a FEMA designated floodplain, specifically the 100-year floodplain, you have a federally backed mortgage, you're required to purchase flood insurance through that program. Unfortunately, it's now widely acknowledged that even by FEMA themselves, that the FEMA flood maps are no longer adequate for predicting coastal and inland risks, and they're also poorly predictive of where stormwater flooding is likely to occur. One of the major reasons that these maps are no longer adequate is because they failed to incorporate the most up to date science on flood risk. Climate data for Massachusetts shows that sea level is expected to rise by around 4 feet by the end of this century and that could be as much as 10 feet if we don't do what we need to, to curb carbon emissions.
Riverine and stormwater flooding will also increase as extreme precipitation events become more frequent and severe. But FEMA maps don't consider these changes in sea level rise or these changes in rainfall patterns. In fact, terminology commonly associated with FEMA flood maps, like 100-year flood plan or 500-year flood plan, have become not only obsolete, but extremely misleading as these events have become much more frequent. Here are just a few statistics that help illustrate this8154 problem. A 2020 report from First Street Foundation, which is a nonprofit research and technology group, estimated that more than 336,000 properties in Massachusetts are currently8166 at risk of flooding, that's 65% more properties than the FEMA maps currently say are. FEMA itself reports that about 40% of all flood claims that they receive come from outside of that 100-year flood claim area, the area that mandatory for flood insurance purchase requirement. FEMA has publicly acknowledged the deficiencies of its flood plan maps and has in fact said that communities should not use them for their long-range planning, but it simply doesn't have the capacity or the resources to update them, let alone to revise their mapping methodology to incorporate climate data. So, communities are on their own, unfortunately, and it's, as I said before, a problem because we have really tied all of our local and state regulations to this information that's now outdated. The good news is that FEMA is no longer the only reliable source of information about flood risk in the US, there are numerous highly credible non-profit, for profit companies providing modeling technology, science, and tools to better protect, better predict flood risk, including, and you've got some of our own communities in Massachusetts, including Boston and Cambridge, have, produced data using these companies that8248 is better than what FEMA provides,8250 and EEA as well has developed a state level coastal flood risk model that incorporates forward looking climate data.
The problem is that we haven't taken the necessary steps to integrate any of this information data into our flood plan management techniques and building code standards. So that brings me to two of our recommendations, requiring flood risk disclosure of property sales here and better integrating climate data into flood plan management and building standards. We need to both ensure that people have the information that they need to make informed decisions about purchasing properties, and ensure that new development is resilient to climate impacts like flooding. This is important because as you heard from both MEMA and the division of insurance, if a property is destroyed, there's a massive recovery cost to rebuild, to rehab properties. As, I think you pointed out earlier, Senator Pacheco, that money doesn't come from nowhere, it means that we are taking it from other places, we're not making investments where we might want to because we8310 have to spend that money on disaster recovery. To Senator Barrett's question earlier to the division of insurance, we are actually seeing premium increases for homeowners’ insurance policies, which are separate from flood insurance properties because of the increase in the replacement cost of housing, because housing costs are so out of control. So those numbers just continue to rise, not necessarily because of risk, but just because of the cost of how to rebuild cap rates. So first, the Commonwealth should mandate flood risk8340 disclosure in all countries. What does this mean? The Natural Resource8344 Defense Council undertook a study, a nationwide study a few years ago that scored every state in the US based on their current flood risk disclosure requirements,8353 and Massachusetts received a8355 poor grade, that puts us behind neighboring states like New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island because our state currently has no statutory or regulatory requirements for a8366 seller to disclose a property's flood risk or its past flood damages.8370
While the Massachusetts Association of Realtors has created a disclosure form for sellers to use, it's completely voluntary and most sellers don't use it. In comparison, New York State requires sellers to disclose flood risk, including if the property is within a FEMA floodplain, if it's subject to mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, if it's ever benefited from federal disaster flood assistance or filed a flood damage claim or if the structure has ever experienced flood damage due to a natural flood event. Flood disclosure laws, like any good real estate disclosure law empower buyers to make informed decisions about what's often the largest financial investment of their lives. In light of the fact that FEMA's flood plain maps don't adequately, depict flooding, a requirement that sellers disclose past flood claims and damage, regardless of whether the property is within a FEMA floodplain is particularly important. There's often no other way for a buyer to get this information before they purchase the property. Second, the state must integrate climate science into our floodplain management and building standards for new development. The first and most obvious place for these updates8438 is in the state's building code,8440 and if you read Chief Hoffer's report, if you read the resilient Mass report, you saw that the state has acknowledged that they'd like to make changes to the state building code.
They've specifically said that they want8449 to create a stretch code that would be a municipal opt in code that would go beyond the base code, that is a great goal, and we are supportive of8458 that. It's not enough, and it's not going to happen fast, there are things we need to do to the base code now that will better prepare our new development for climate risk. In Massachusetts, you may know this, cities and towns are preempted by the state building code, which means that they are legally unable to pass local building standards, even if those standards are more protective than the states. They rely on the standards of the state building code to protect their communities, they can't get around it. And because the state's building code does not currently incorporate any climate data on sea level rise or extreme precipitation, we're not prepared. We have to both update the existing standards for flood resistant construction8500 in the code and expand the geographic area to which those8504 standards apply. Changes to the existing standards for construction could include, for example, increasing the amount of free board that's required for development in flood risk areas. We currently only require 1 to 2 feet of free board for most properties. When I say free board, think of elevation, as another term for elevation. And keep in mind that most sea level rise estimates for our state are hovering about 4 feet.
So, we only require about 1 to 2 feet of elevation for most property types. Increasing the free board requirement by even one additional foot could dramatically increase the resilience of new construction. A report by MAPC, that evaluated flood damage claims a series of extreme rain events in 2010 found that of the flood claims that were granted during those storms, 87% were for flood levels of less than a foot, and 71% were for flood levels of less than 6 inches. So, 1 foot of elevation doesn't sound like a lot, but it really makes a significant difference, it can be the difference between somebody having to do a lot of costly post flood, rehab work or not. We must also increase the geographic area to which flood resistant construction standards apply. So, everything8577 I just said about FEMA flood maps is about to make a lot of sense. Right now, flood resistant construction in this state is only mandated within FEMA's 100-year flood plain. That same flood plain that's under activating the number of properties at risk of flooding by about 60%. As we've discussed, you know, FEMA's maps don't accurately depict flooding, so why are we still using them to determine where we maintain flood resistant construction? New development projects built today that fall outside of that area are not required to comply with those standards, and the communities can't make them comply because they can't have local building standards that exceed the state's building code standards.
There are ways for them to try and skirt it through zoning, but it's really complicated, and it's really hard for towns specifically who have to get their local ordinances approved by the attorney general's office before they can include them because they're running into this preemption issue. We have to increase the geographic area where this is required8633 so that it aligns with actual and future risk. Buildings built today will be around for at least 30 to 50 years, if not more, and they are most certainly going to experience these increased flood risks that we're predicting. Finally, the Commonwealth should establish a and fund a state-run voluntary buyout program for at risk properties. Thank you for the Bills that you have filed last session and this session on this issue.8658 We are extremely supportive of those Bills8660 moving forward, and I was happy to hear, the folks from MEMA earlier8664 today say that this is a priority for them, this is something we really should act quickly on. We've been talking about it for a very long time, so it's a little bit disheartening to hear that we feel we're still at the stage where we need to evaluate whether we should do it, I think we absolutely need to do it. I think it's also a really important moment to the8684 flood disclosure law that we're recommending, and I'll8686 talk a little bit about why. But8688 just for folks who are not familiar with voluntary buyout program. It would basically enable willing sellers with properties that are at risk of flooding to receive state money for their home and to relocate.
The concept of a voluntary buyout program is not new, in fact, as MEMA mentioned, FEMA manages a federal voluntary buyout program across all 50 states, and it's implemented in partnership with each state. It's intended to, as I've said, buyout willing sellers whose properties have been damaged or destroyed in natural disasters, and once those properties are acquired, they are8723 returned to their natural state and prohibited from being developed again in the future. The problem with the existing federal program is that it is slow and underfunded, just not surprising. It's frequently criticized for its very long property acquisition timelines. Typically, it takes a federal buyout project at least five years from start to finish, which can be a huge barrier to participation for low-income homeowners who just don't have the ability to kind of be in flux for that period of time. There's even actually been federal buyouts here in Massachusetts that have taken nearly 10 years to go through. So, it's just not a feasible option for a lot of people who would otherwise be interested. Massachusetts needs the state buyout program to support, and also the needs that FEMA may not address, FEMA's program is more limited in scope as MEMA mentioned, and we would also that would enable us to leverage federal public and private investments in a way that we can't fit the federal program. It also would allow us to streamline and simplify the process for8780 sellers, something else that MEMA mentioned by providing case8784 management and technical assistance.
Again, not really something that's available through the process and we could also target homeowners and properties that are most in need of the buyout option. We would not be the first state to create such a program, there are plenty of examples. We are not really forging a new path here, the New Jersey Blue Acres program has been around since 1990 and, they've acquired more than 700 properties through that program in over 16 cities and towns. Having a well-functioning and well-funded state buyout program, is a kind of a critical complement to the flood risk disclosure law because as we've talked a lot about, as property values begin to align with flood risk, we are eventually going to see those strong market signals. That's going to happen with or without a flood risk disclosure law, but we may see that law speed that process up a little bit as buyers have more information available to them about what the risk of properties are and what we worry about is that could make those properties harder8842 to sell in the private market. So, if there's no alternative path or the only alternative path is the federal program, which is extremely underfunded and8850 complicated, we want to be sure that we're not unintentionally trapping low-8854 and moderate-income homeowners in unsafe situations where they had their biggest asset has now fallen in value, and they have no financial pathway to get out to relocate. That's why having a state-run buyout program that is less complicated and well-funded is so important. I'll just note as many of you know, there are Bills on a lot of these issues in the legislature right now.
I mentioned Senator Pacheco's Bill on the buyout program, there's also Bills that Conservation Law Foundation has worked on with Senator Creem, Edwards and Rep Miranda's on climate based buildings that would address a lot of these building code issues that I've talked about today, and also on utility resilience, which is something I'm not talking about today. So just to wrap up, this data has done a lot of great work on data collection, modeling, planning for climate resilience, but we really are kind of far from ready for those impacts until we move more quickly8912 on implementation. So, we really8914 think these three things8916 are8916 critical next steps. Like I said, they're kind of low hanging fruit; two of them, the flood risk disclosure law and the state building code updates don't cost us anything, we could do that tomorrow if we have the political will to do them.8928 So, just because there's so many things that we need to do to prepare doesn't mean we shouldn't start kind of slowly chipping away at8934 the list for the things that are easy to do. And that's it for me, thank you for your time.
Thank you for your time and for your patience being here all this time. If you can give us, your testimony.
Yes.
And I will make sure that the rest of the members of the committee also, have the testimony.
PACHECO - In terms of the disclosure piece, there are Bills that are out there on that as well?
MORAN - Yes, there are a couple of states in New York, actually, the example that I had, it's not in the state legislature, but, New York, the Bill that I had given as8970 an example, they actually just passed last year. So, there are plenty of examples8975 from other states.
Good. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Text now. Pamela.
Thank you so much for being late.
Thank you.
EMILY NORTON - CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION - First, I just want to start with gratitude for holding this hearing and for your personal passion for this subject. We've known each other a long time, and it's just such a difference9003 when a legislator has a personal passion9005 for something. I think that's why we're here, and I'm excited about the follow-on hearings that I know that you're planning. So, my name is Emily Norton, I'm the executive director of Charles River Watershed Association, and I also just retired after five terms as any of the city councilor. So, the issues of costs related to climate change, both cost of action and inaction could not be more timely as we saw the videos you've been hearing all morning. What I want to talk about is the things that we can be doing to reduce the need for MEMA to be, for the emergency management, because, there are things9052 we can be doing that we, as a watershed group, have some insights into that are not intuitive, very science, very engineer y, but it's really important if we're going to be taking this issue seriously. So, I'll just give you some quick background and then offer some specific recommendations, almost all of which Deanna also covered, but it's worth it to reinforce. So, Charles River Watershed Association was founded in 1965 by a group of residents who did not accept the conventional wisdom9080 at the time that the Charles could not be cleaned up.
We played a central role in the cleanup ever since. Another entity that played9087 a central role is the legislature, the legislature created the MWRA.9091 The MWRA has been, spent billions of dollars on cleanup of the harbor and the Charles and has arguably transformed the quality of life in Greater Boston. The harbor9102 beaches, the esplanade, the seaport, you wouldn't have put your beautiful leaning commercial building at the seaport when9108 the harbor smelled like poop. So, it's really been transformational. Another important entity was ratepayer, and so those themes are with us now. We need the legislature to step up. Cities and towns are not going to clean up those waterways, the harbor by themselves, and we need to fund it. I believe strongly that just like with the harbor cleanup, when the public understands the risks and they understand the benefit that they'll see, they're going to be willing to put the9136 money in. So that's our job is to make9138 them see what we need to be doing, what their money needs to go to in order to keep them safe and to protect cost from getting any larger. I say that because when I see the news coverage of the storms in Western Mass, Leominster, etcetera, it's almost like the news is still reporting on the place to 78, like, look at that big storm, there's no then well, let's look at why that happened.
When Europeans first came to Massachusetts, the land was really different, look at the names of a lot of our communities, Bridgewater, Brook Field, Brookline, Marshfield, Medfield, Medford, Medway, Meadow, Watertown, our lands were super watery. They massively changed them in order for us to have the9184 modern built environment we have now. They constructed dams, they filled in wetlands, they put streams and brooks into underground culverts.9190 In the last 1500 years,9192 we put down a lot of pavements. So now it's9194 like Jason with the maps, the water is coming back to where it used to be, and we need9200 to adjust our built environment. It doesn't mean we get rid of our built environment, it just means rain gardens, bios wales, restoring wetlands. We need to be treating our built environment differently, we need to be respecting nature and working with nature, not to get all wobble on us, but rather than thinking we can control everything, we can't. Between us and mother nature, mother nature's going to win. So, toward that end, why a watershed group would know more about this, the same things that you need to do to clean up our water are the same things that'll do to address flooding in particular, as well as heat, those nature-based solutions, and I won't go nerd out about those, but that's why at Watershed Group, it is actually very logical that I would be here making these recommendations.
So, with that background, a few recommendations for the state can be doing to recognize the great work that's already been done. The MVP program is fabulous. It's got billions of dollars out to communities, but there are ways that we can improve that, and certainly we need to be funding it more and we're very pleased to see the report from climate Chief Melissa Hoffer recommending climate science and data be incorporated into all9270 levels of decision making, that is definitely not happening9272 so far as Deanna referenced. We're also very pleased, literally right before the holidays, to see the new stormwater standards issued by DEP, and we look forward to seeing those implemented as soon as possible because we do believe that will also reduce flooding risk. There's going to be a long common period, we will definitely have comments on how we can strengthen that, because, for example, those requirements so far are just a present-day condition, not what we know is coming. So, in terms of what more, very specifically, the state should be doing, we think should be doing yesterday. As Deanna referenced, I won't go9306 into detail, our development decisions are being made based on FEMA flood maps, I can speak to this as a city councilor and also someone who our organization works with cities and towns across the watershed. They were not designed for9318 helping with development decision, they were designed9320 to set flood insurance rates.
We have spoken with FEMA; they are not updating those maps anytime soon. I won't say too much because I'm sure that Leah is going to address her report from March 2010, but I will I'll say it anyway. Their report was that 96% of flood and disaster claims from the March 2010 storm, last massive flooding we had in Massachusetts were outside FEMA 100-year flood. Like, that is crazy, that is crazy and that we are still relying on that data. So, the government knows more, is not keeping people safe, that's the bottom line right now. So, people are still living in areas that are vulnerable, they're renting in areas that are vulnerable. We require disclosure of risk when9372 it comes to lead paint in very limited circumstances when it comes to flooding, we need to be doing a better job of that. As Deanna reference, NRDC graded all the states on their flood disclosure laws. Massachusetts was one of 18 states to get an F grade. We were up there with Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. Yes, that is embarrassing that Rhode Island is ahead of us as a native Massachusetts person, that is embarrassing, but you can only do that if you have accurate data. So just to give you an example of what you could do because CRWA has done it. We worked with two dozen of its cities and towns in our watershed with the consulting firm Weston and Sampson with an MVP grant. It's like, $250,000, it was nothing. We put together flood models. Basically, a computer simulation where and when flooding is likely to occur today, 2030 to 2050, and in 2070, and it's interactive.
People can look up their own address, their own school, their own business and find out what your risk is. With that information, the cities and towns could be told, you need to use this information for planning and development9441 purposes. You should be restricting development in areas we know we're going to9445 fund.9445 You should be directing developers in areas that we I'm reasonably we're not at risk of flooding now or in the future. It would have cost a fortune for every city and town to do this on their own, this is something that every watershed, we have 28 watersheds in Massachusetts, the state could be providing this for all of them. To give you an example from our watershed and,9467 Senator Rush and Senator, Barrett, it's relevant for them, they're watershed, Senators. Currently, a 10-year storm, which means a 10% chance of occurring annually, will flood nearly 8,000 acres in the Charles River watershed. That state same storm9483 is projected to flood an additional9485 3,000 acres by 2070. For town cities and towns like Newcomb, Famine Needham, this means that in 2070, once safe areas are9494 likely to be submerged, some areas of Newton and Needham will see a 118% increase in areas, while parts of Dedham will see a 283% increase. They cannot be planning for this if they're not even aware and this is true in all of our communities, at least particularly the ones that have more pavement that are more built up.
So, that means that they are making development decisions today based on old, outdated, flawed information. This is something very concrete the state should be doing, could be doing, it9530 should be doing. In fact, this action is part of the resilient Mass plan, but it hasn't been9535 acted on yet, let's just get it done. Tying strings to funding is another thing that we keep doing. Right now, the MSP doles out hundreds of millions of monies to cities and towns to renovate new schools, and we do not use this opportunity to condition these funds to improve climate resilience. For example, right now, all of you taxpayers are putting $20,000,000 into a new elementary school in Newton that is being rebuilt, the countryside school. It's being rebuilt because it floods, and we are rebuilding it in the exact same location. So, $60,000,000 school, $20,000,000 from the state, and the state had been like, it's a flood zone, we're not going to fund it. Well, Newton probably put it somewhere else. How often in other communities is that happening? That is going to be more costs in the future. Our flood model CRWA's flood model shows, well, if you ever go to it, light blue is a little bit of water, it's a lot of dark blue, a lot of water in Massachusetts. This is not theoretical; this is happening today.
Another example is the MBTA community's law which Newton just got it done. We did our part, the end of the year last year. The guidance on the state community may restrict development away from flood zones, not shall, may. What kind9615 of message does that send on how important the state thinks all of this? Cities and towns need the guides from the state, that guidance gives bad information. And that, I would argue, is putting our residents or businesses, etcetera, at risk. The MVP program, it9630 needs a lot more funding, we think it should be treated more like, your circuit breaker funds, your transportation bonds, and I get it, we all have to figure out where that money is coming from and we believe we could be doing more to lower barriers for the smaller, less resourced communities because it's very onerous right now to apply. So, the communities that are not as well-resourced are not even able to compete or9655 are not as successful getting funding. Then lastly, if we9659 are going to be serious about addressing flooding, we believe it's necessary to have some level of regional governance. When I look at what CRWA is doing in our watershed, we're basically stepping up and acting like a regional government. We're helping our cities and towns with the data, we're helping them access funding, we're helping them identify projects to help protect them from flooding. For example, in our watershed, and this is true in all the watersheds.
Let's say Millis decides they're going to pave over a bunch of land for more property tax revenues, but it's going to cause a lot more downstream flooding in Needham and Wellesley because water does not respect municipal boundaries. Well, right now, there's nothing to stop Millis from doing that, Wellesley won't even know that Millis doing that. It should be someone's job to help protect everyone, so they're making smart decisions about water. As long as you have a PhD in hydrology or groundwater, it's not something that regular people running cities and towns are aware of. There are examples of governance structures in other states, even other countries that we could be looking to at a model. We've been doing some work on that we will be sharing, so we'd love to, work with you on that. So bottom line is people expect their government to protect them, to protect their safety, to protect their property, and right now, we're9732 not doing that, we're not doing as much9734 as we can for the risks that we already know are here. Thank you.
Thank you very, very much,
and you'll get me some of those recommendations.
Yep.
Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. The next Sir, Leah. Leah.
Good afternoon, senator. How are you today?
How are you? I'm well.
9760 LEAH9760 ROBINS9760 -9760 METROPOLITAN9760 AREA9760 PLANNING9760 COUNCIL9760 -9760 Thank9760 you for holding this hearing today and for the invitation9762 to participate. I'm really glad to be here among so many amazing organizations, I'm learning a lot, so thank you. My name is Leah Robins, I am the director of government affairs at MAPC, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, where we serve the 101 cities of the Greater Boston region. We're really excited to be partnering with the Healey Driscoll administration tackling9787 these9787 issues head on. The creation of the climate Chief position especially elevates the level of action and coordination and adds that critical capacity of leadership for the Commonwealth. So, we're really eager to be partnering in that way, and the resilient Mass plan reflects many of the challenges that we're seeing in the communities we serve in our region. I want to focus a little bit on the extreme weather impacts service that the hearing outlined, facing municipalities and the policies that the state can be implementing to address them. I'll start with extreme flooding, a little bit about extreme heat, and then the critical resource question of how do we actually fund and get all this work done. MAPC has developed FEMA approved hazard mitigation plans for over 90 of our cities and towns. Almost without exception, flooding inland or coastal is the number one natural hazard our communities are facing. The challenges have been illustrated today, many properties along our rivers, wetlands, and coast are already threatened during heavy rainstorms and coastal flooding.
Future increases in storm intensity and sea level rise are only going to magnify those risks. Cities and towns already have properties that have been repeatedly flooded and will certainly experience significant damage or destruction during the next big storm. These properties put residents and municipal staff at9864 risk during storms. In areas9866 subject to regular flooding, municipalities are already increasingly challenged to provide required roadway maintenance and municipal services. While these conditions are projected to worsen over the course of this century, the reality is that every winter as the Easter season is upon us as it is today, we are at risk of experiencing the next blizzard of 78 for the next perfect storm, it's always just around. While there's been long focus on the risks of coastal flooding,9893 our research and the resilient Mass plan point out the risk of flood damage due to stormwater work generally. Just being inland is not a predictor of safety from floodwaters. Action is needed at the local, state and federal levels all to respond to this challenge. At the local level, MAPC recently launched a climate resiliency project funded by EEA and the Bar Foundation to highlight those local policies that are getting it right and providing the exact language that other municipalities can utilize across a number of different resiliency areas. We're excited to help promote that tool9924 and highlight those examples where communities are really working on smart policies, we're glad to share that out. At the state level, policy recommendations can respond to both coastal and inland flooding challenges.
Particularly looking at our coastal areas and needs, MAPC is supportive of the legislation filed by Senator Pacheco and Representative Pete this session to launch an acquisition and buyout program study and the program itself. The voluntary property acquisition buyout program, as Deanna mentioned earlier today, can enable homeowners to leave those high-risk areas. This can be especially important option for environmental justice and other priority populations who may not have the financial means to move or to repair after floods, and it's also a critical opportunity to address those challenges with the federal program in terms of the delays and in9975 terms of structure. We know the decision to9977 leave a home is a hard one, and the federal program does not provide those9981 supports for case management, just hold someone's hand through the process. As Deanna mentioned too, we're going to reduce greatest hits here, requiring flood history disclosure is incredibly important. Massachusetts is one of only 15 states in the entire country that has no disclosure requirements for potential home buyers. I would say renters need to be aware of these risks. Massachusetts could investigate the possibility of requiring notifications to tenants when a unit is in a 1% or a 2% chance flood zone, enforce landlords to disclose when a unit has been previously damaged by flooding as New York did it this past December. Without disclosure requirements and without data available, MAPC has also issued a call for information about storm impacts, that hit our region in early December.
We literally put out the call just before the holidays, we've got more than 150 responses so far about where people's flooding is, we're trying to get data however we can. So, I'll make sure to send that up too, we'd love to get more information in about what's happening around the state. Funding for stormwater is critical, and water infrastructure more generally is willfully underfunded in Massachusetts. Repairs to our aging infrastructure and adding in green and gray infrastructure is going to be required to increase flood risks. This is especially important in highly urban location and environmental justice population. We know an10061 expanded and brand formula fundings are available via the VIL and IRA, but even more resource are going to be needed in the law. Funding for water infrastructure is different from other forms of infrastructure, they are usually offered to municipalities as a low interest loan, not a grant fund program, this makes the investment more costly to undertake. I'll also call out, the flood resilience requirements to elevate utilities and mechanical equipment and then to provide a program and to provide assistance to make those necessary retrofits would be a key element of responding to our flood challenges. One flood damage result in loss of heating and electric system, repair costs, and the likelihood of displacement are much higher. As Emily mentioned, MAPCs research from the March 2010 rainstorms10111 that led to a federal disaster declaration found that over 90% of disaster claims and over 40% of flood insurance claims were from outside the FEMA 1% flood zone, and 70% of disaster claims had depths of 6 inches or less. The building code should require elevation to at least that height for all new and replacement utilities. Ideally, the state should require or encourage10133 placement of utilities above grade.
The National Flood Insurance Program has recognized the financial impact of utility damage, recently instituting the 5% flood10142 insurance discount if the utilities are located10144 above grade. As noted in recently at Mass, the Commonwealth requires mandatory enforcement the statewide building code. It does not allow local amendments. State action is going to be necessary to create these requirements. Updated flood overlay districts and stormwater regulations, common sense building code improvements by grazing utilities can help limit the disruption and financial impacts caused by storm water flooding. We also believe that there's opportunities to adapt some innovative insurance strategies to assist low-income households, I've heard a lot about insurance today. Many insurance programs are not affordable for a low-income household, and, they're slow in the reimbursement costs, which can make it even more challenging. Some states have started providing insurance funds upfront, addressing the gap of not having cash immediately after a flooding event. Switch a little bit to talk about heat, which then we haven't talked about in a little bit today. Summer temperature in the Boston area is dramatically increasing along with extreme temperature events like heat waves, those defined as over 90-degree days. By 2030, scientists predict that we could see 41 days of 90-degree temperatures or higher due to climate change, that's more than double what we have right now. Impacts, are on our health and safety infrastructure and economy, and while everyone is impacted by extreme heat, some are at more risk than others. Extreme heat is deadly, causing more deaths than any other natural disaster in the United States.
In recent studies show that 37% of heat related deaths globally across 732 location studies can be attributed to climate change. Despite these challenges, municipalities, communities and individuals can proactively prepare for these rising temperatures by increasing access to cooling resources, implementing policies and projects to reduce urban heat islands, improving healthy housing and making deep investments to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the state has a key role to play here. Some of the next steps that we think can be really impactful here is reducing exposure10266 and heat risk through cooling our homes and existing buildings. Massachusetts needs to make more opportunities available to adapt our existing buildings, to make them more resilient and energy efficient and better able to withstand these extreme temperatures coming our way. The Governor's housing bond Bill, which is before the legislature right now, for example, includes funding, $150,000,000 to decarbonize State funded public housing, which would be an incredible10291 first step to protecting some of our most vulnerable residents. Communities are also able to lead by example and ensure the public facilities like schools, as Emily mentioned, and10299 other critical community facilities are10301 resilient to extreme heat and provide access to life. Programs like the Mass school building authority and our library construction programs could be modified to incentivize10310 these sorts of measures. In preparedness and reducing exposure showed at the policy level also include evaluating the adoption of workplace maximum temperature standards, and establishment of indoor temperature maximum for residents as part of our sanitary code.
On schools in particular, we should be finding ways to make buildings more resilient to heat and incentivize these adaptations. Things like woody10335 materials that increase heat in10337 outdoor play areas, planting more trees, building more shade, installing cool roof materials, right? These are all things that we know can work and make incentives for municipalities to spend taxpayer dollars on those resources. Unfunded, I'll note too around heat that LIHEAP provides low-income households, below 60% of AMI with a fixed benefit towards their cost of heating paid directly to the utility. LIHEAP is critical for ensuring low-income Massachusetts residents can stay warm in the winter, and it's even more critical now with volatile energy prices. In Massachusetts, LIHEAP is designated as a heating benefit available from November 1st to April 30th, that is our program. But, in other states, it's also available for cooling and that may be something we want to consider looking at with our federal delegation. Obviously, resources are very tight in the program now just covering our existing heating needs, but it might be worth seeing if there's a way to address our cooling resources through that as well. Legislation is required to improve communications about extreme heat before, during, and after events to shift behaviors. We're glad to see that this was included in the resilient mass plan. Establishing a flood and extreme heat communication system is critical.
We're already working on a regional level, there are things we can do to coordinate more to protect our frontline communities. None of this is possible without optimizing our federal and state resources to advance equity and address the high priority climate crisis. So, we're excited to see this already underway with the establishment of the Massachusetts Climate Bank, the first Green Bank dedicated to affordable housing. While the focus is on deep energy retrofits and investments that are focused towards reducing emissions, we know these are also going to cover residents’ energy costs for years to come, helping them be more resilient, and we can respond to other climate risk and make home healthier and more affordable for years10454 to come. Building decarbonization generally is something we are really focused on it at MAPC and our many of our communities are focused on as well. It's one of the largest sources of emissions in communities and also where we spend most of our time so it impacts our health. Our greenhouse gas reduction goals for the state, our targets depend largely on the building sector, but businesses, residents, consumers lack resources that will accelerate decarbonization efforts. Similar to the executive office of housing and economic development community10486 one step program, MAPC believes that it would be empowering to have the streamlined experience for users looking to access, existing and emerging state and federal programs like Mass Save that could, put on this building decarbonization efforts.
A one stop program through which businesses and consumers of all income can access existing decarbonization programs or single point of contact is key. This priority is a consensus recommendation of the Clean Heat Commission, it could be expanded over time to incorporate other resources that advance resilience and health in buildings, such as weatherization, deep energy, retrofits, energy storage, district heating, the list goes on and on. We also believe it's imperative to invest in those existing successful programs. We're excited that MVP 2.0 is our launch to support more municipal resilience planning and greater resources, including EEA capacity to support project implementation. Municipalities are ready to lead, the program represents an outstanding example of state resources partnering with local knowledge and initiative to make our communities safer, more fair, and more livable. 349 of the 351 cities and towns have completed their vulnerability assessments and more than $100,000,000 has been given after fiscal 23 for locally driven priorities that meet the goals of the program. More funding is needed to support the necessary impact we need to have on our community. Authority oversubscribed each year and MAPC is supportive of a proposal to increase funding to more than $100,000,000 a year. Obviously finding the funding is a challenge, but we are supportive of working together with the legislature to try to10583 make that happen. It's essential to enable10585 communities to develop several worthy projects10587 to secure federal grants and other financing.
We also are grateful for the partnership for the Healey Driscoll administration and going federal funds that can meet some of the scale of these challenges facing municipalities. Particularly relevant for this hearing, I just want to encourage the committee to consider a Bill that is before the Senate Ways and Means committee filed by the administration to enable cities and towns to access matching funds with their federal grant applications. Right now, that is a barrier for cities and towns looking to apply for federal money to address these resilience challenges, because we don't have an ability to locally raise revenue source, quickly, and these grant applications are usually open for maybe two months, if we are lucky. Now is the time to develop these regulatory tools and programs to address extreme weather that is more frequently in the Commonwealth. Thank you again for the opportunity to offer comments today, and I'll be sure to submit written testimony as well.
PACHECO - Thank you very much. Quick question on the MVP program and the10652 amount of money you talked about and the amount of cities and towns that had participated. I don't know if you heard me earlier, but I10662 was talking about wanting to get some kind of10669 a handle on or if there has been a study on it done by the administration or one of the advocacy organizations, looking at what they had invested in any type of mapping of10695 what's going on. I mean, has it worked for the most part? You know, I mean, an assessment of the entire program. I don't know. Emily, did you have anything?
NORTON - We saw the metrics of success being reported of how much money was spent, the number of projects, and that was, I think, a fair critique that there was an affinity counts required to go through a vulnerability assessment. That speaks out, like, here are the, folks in your community that are more vulnerable, here are the properties that are more vulnerable, relations that are more vulnerable. In the early days, the funding wasn't necessarily, I don't think, prioritized to the most vulnerable people, so this sort of came to the fore at an MMA conference couple years ago where the town well, I won't say which town, a town is reporting on their MVP grant, which was $2,000,000 to rebuild their town center and put in support green storm water infrastructure and so forth.
10766 And10766 during the Q and A, the wastewater operator from Newburyport, I believe it was, stood up and was like, okay, we were turned down to make our wastewater treatment plant that's right on the ocean safer from climate change, and this town got $2,000,000 to rebuild their town center. So, I think that is a reasonable thing to be looking at for the next round is that we're matching10790 funding to make sure it's really prioritized10792 to be solving the problems that are addressed. Then also, what I was trying to raise is that I don't even know if you could say, like, well, this is how much it's going to cost to make Massachusetts invulnerable, etcetera, not that we would ever be invulnerable because we need to do things to store water over here, plant trees over there, we need to do a bunch of that kind of thing that will reduce costs, but that analysis hasn't got done yet.
PACHECO - There's going to be a lot done in the natural world as well too depending upon what a full 15% reduction in that sector to meet our 2050 requirements.
ROBINS - The MVP program, one of the things that as a data wonk, I particularly love about it is they publicize every community's assessment and every program that has been funded through the program is all on the website.
PACHECO - How's that?
ROBINS - It's all through EEA. It's a really beautifully done collaboration and it really makes it easy to learn from other communities' experiences. So, I just want to give those staffers a shout out because they're doing really great things over there, and thanks to the legislature, watershed associations and regional planning agencies have been able to apply directly to the MVP program, which has made a huge impact for some of those smaller communities to actually do projects at scale. The regional planning agencies have been able to apply directly on behalf of those smaller communities coming together. So, taking that administrative burden off of their shoulders, and that was thanks to a legislative change, we're really grateful for that.
PACHECO - We got a largest, planning agency in the Commonwealth.
ROBINS - We all work really closely together. The 13 directories, they come in their monthly, it's one of my favorite calls.
And tell Mark I said hi.
I will.
I mean, I did talk to him earlier, but it was just nice to see him in the building again. You know, so, let me just thank all of you for your testimony. And just to say, to all of you and you represent the best10937 of a lot of the advocacy organizations that are out there, trying to do the right thing. And
PACHECO - The reason why we watched those clips up at the beginning was just to try to emphasize the urgency of where we are. We could all celebrate all of what we've seen happen over the last 15, 20 years or10964 so, those of us that have been around that long, and I've been around much longer, and it's easy to celebrate some of those successes. But, given the magnitude of the problems that we are now facing and the intensity of it all, we really need to move much, much more quickly. I'm pleased that, I think that the Healey Driscoll administration has some of the10996 right players in place. Climate Chief, all my conversations with her and the public documents that have been put out of the office all head11008 us in the right direction, but it's a matter of how we're going to finance it now. How does that get financed to get implemented as quickly as possible.
So, I am very interested to the extent that any collaboration discussion takes place, and we had a Bill a few years ago, and, actually, it's filed again this year. I think it's the livable Communities Act, we worked very closely with the planning agency here in Boston and a lot of planning agencies across the Commonwealth looking at development and how we need to be developing livable communities, which was talking about impact on inundation, water, all kinds of things11072 that happen with development. But also, how do you finance a lot11078 of this stuff going forward without coming up with a major tax increase. But there may be other ways that assessments can be assessed based on things like polluters' pay and there are other scenarios that we could look at in terms of cap and invest systems that are in place. The largest system that's out there are California, and Quebec is in it, we could be doing a lot more in that regard in11121 some other scenarios. So, I'd ask you as much as I love what you had to say today, and you've given us some information, we're also going to be looking at how do we work with the administration to try to figure out, especially in light of some of the most recent economic news, how are we going to finance some of the stuff to get it done?
ROBINS - The question is how do we tie existing money to doing the right choice and making it easier for these attempts to their population and say, hey, we need to do it this way because we're going to get worse of it, on some of those11165 things we need to do.
PACHECO - Emily, I think you had mentioned it about the schools and the way the program is established with the one penny on the sales tax that goes back to help with the development of our educational infrastructure throughout the school systems in the Commonwealth, but we should be putting more ties to, I mean, I can't tell you how many school openings I've gone to, and I've asked when I've been there, and they all go back to, like, lead certification, that type of thing. So, well, that's okay, but that's a yesteryear type of standard. Now11219 you should be looking at, well, do we have, dollar arrays?
NORTON - We actually met with the executive director. But as, we're putting about 40 local officials to write a letter and send it to the executive director to the treasurer to the SBA board about Keisha High Springs as the funding schools should be net zero, have electric vehicles, etcetera, and be climate resilient. Then we had a follow-up Zoom with11251 them, and they said that they support if communities want to do that, but if they were to force that, then basically, they use this word space. Like, people would be mad at us. So, what I took away is they need to know that the legislature would support this and that cities and towns, yes, there's probably going11274 to be some cities and towns wouldn't like that, but that there's enough understanding among the public, or you all should just make them do it. They feel the tension that the people who,
PACHECO - Well, it should be done.
NORTON - I mean, I'm just saying that was what we heard back, and I had, like, a dozen local officials in this follow-up Zoom, and it was like, no, we're not going to do that, and it was really because they didn't feel like they would have the support to do that. Another Bill that's been referenced is Senator Creem's has a Bill, that would run the things, but basically looking at the Green Communities Act and citizen downs do things that the Green Communities Act say in order get those funds and have a sort of resilience one. So, one example is every city in town is required to have a treatment plan. Maybe every city and town should be required of someone who's trained in green storm water infrastructure, make your resolutions, things like that, so that you're also having the cities and towns play their role to take steps to reduce the costs in order to be eligible.
Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Some strings strings attached to it. Well, listen. Thank you all very, very much. And if there's any questions while you're leaving the table? None.
© InstaTrac 2025