2021-06-22 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
2021-06-22 00:00:00 - Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
utilities. The
uh well, you probably just got the notice that there's a recording in progress. It be helpful if you hit. Yes. Um and one thing I'll ask is if if you're not speaking at at any point, if you could mute your microphones, that way, we can avoid any uh any feedback during the meeting. Uh this is our June 22 hearing of the telecommunications utilities and energy committee, and we're going to cover topics uh regarding municipalities and the municipality, uh municipal life plants. Uh, take this opportunity to introduce the House members of the committee who are with us now, and I certainly expect that others will be joining us throughout the proceedings. Uh First of all, Leader, brad Bradley jones, Representative joan machine. Oh, Representative Lenny miro. Representative Dylan Fernandez, Representative paul Mac rep, Representative steven Cohen's. Uh and after I conclude introductory remarks, I'll turn it over to Senator Barrett and I'm sure that he will introduce uh the Senate members uh the uh asking that folks please limit their testimony. 2, 3 minutes. I do have a list of those folks who have registered to testify in the hearing. As is customary, we will call members of the Legislature out of order. I know it's particularly important for the members of the House who actually have a caucus and a session today, so we'll try to get through them as quickly as possible. Uh, and finally as I reminded, and I think everybody did please mute113 your microphones if you're not testifying. And with that, before we begin the testimony, let it, let me turn it over to my Senate coach here, Michael Barrett, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman. Uh, there are no additional members of the Senate committee currently with us. Uh, I see there's a one of my colleagues is waiting to testify and we'll look forward to hearing what he has to say. But I'll hand the mic back to you Jeff and look forward to hearing from all of today's143 witnesses.
Thank you so much. And we will begin with house 30-57, which is an act relative to municipal light plants. And Representative J. Barros is going to begin with the testimony there. And I understand that you have Bill keegan from Fox Pro kevin do mass, uh, from Mansfield and uh, joseph sollecito from the Mansfield Municipal Electric Department, which are going to follow you. So red Barrows, you can kick it off. Okay, well, good morning everybody. And, and
REP BARROWS - HB 3257 - Thank you to both chairs for holding this meeting and as Representative Jones said earlier, it's great that you're getting these out of the way and allowing us to have these bills we heard. I won't bore you with all the details, I'm not an expert on municipal light plants, but we do have a great panel this morning to talk about 3257 which involves not only a couple of surrounding towns that Mansfield is the electric light provider for the town of Mansfield and does an amazing job. They had the second-lowest rates in the commonwealth. Joe has done an amazing job since being on board for a number of years and we've got some interesting concepts about helping our neighbouring towns with some service issues.
We certainly have the capacity to do it, the ability to do it and the willingness234 to do it. So I'd like to start off by asking Joe to speak, followed by Bill Keegan, they're both on your screens, using my name as Jay Barrows, I'm not sure if they think they can influence the committee by doing such, but it might be some help. I don't know, we'll see. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So Joe, could you give us some background on the, on the bill254 and then uh, bill follow up and I'm not sure if kevin is on yet. Mr chairman. Um, so, uh, we'll we'll catch him if he comes on board in a few minutes. So joe Mansfield electric light.
JOE SOLLECITO - MANSFIELD ELECTRIC - HB 3257 - Thank you, Representative Jay, I appreciate, Senate, Barrett and all the other distinguished members, I appreciate the time. I'll start quickly that it started in 2019 Northeast Public Power associations, is an Association of all the municipality plants in New England and basically what happened is that there was a project that was nationally promoted. The project was Navajo Nation Project, Navajo Nation has about 10,000 families that don't have electricity, they're still operating by gas-powered engines. Navajo Nation, for those of you, who don't know, it's the corner of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Arizona basically, the National Organization of Public Power utilities put together an initiative and the northeast public power social participated in it and there were 22 after the initial year, starting year, they decided to try to rent this out to all the municipal like plants and 22 municipal like plants decided to participate to help in 2020, but you have to do planning for it ahead of time.
What happened up happening was that we had a discussion with the local retirement board in Bristol County, they sent it to the state and the Praq opinion letter came to us saying that our employees would not be covered uh for retirement and the health care benefits if they got hurt during that and that I should say that, it wasn't just my individual decision to have someone participate. It was a discussion with our union, but also with our municipal light plant board and all of them were supportive of it. The guys would not get over time, they would just get paid the normal rate, they were willing to donate themselves as well as the municipal plant paying for their trip over there, it was actually gonna be a really good372 humanitarian effort to go.
But once we have that letter, we couldn't consciously send anybody there knowing that they were going to have a consequence of not being389 covered. That was the initial thing that took place as a totally separate situation but came last year, the town of Foxborough, and other towns, you know, interested in maybe the maintenance of the streetlights, the town of Foxboro owns the street lights that's served by the national grid. I should say that this bill that Representative Barrows put forth is not what it's not doing is that it's not interfering with the service provided by the investor-owned utilities. That is a distinction made in the restructuring of the utility industry back in the 1990s.
That the investor-owned utilities and service territory are covered in our areas are covered and we can't cross boundaries to provide electric service, not with that. The town itself owns the streetlights in Foxborough and they were looking for us to give a price that would be able to provide the streetlight maintenance services only for their ownership of their streetlights. So we would again pursue that and then when we found out, it's the same reason, the same rationale453 for why this bill is in front of you is because as far as our employees go, they are covered working within the town of Mansfield and they are also covered based on Massachusetts General law 164 if they work on the emergency mutual aid, but if they are not under that domain, then they would not be covered.
So in the same vein, this is why this builds in front of you. If the employees are working under the direction of the general manager and the blessing of the board of commissioners for each respective utility, they should be cuddled, they shouldn't be covered for retirement benefits and surveillance. I just bring up something that happened recently in the city of Worcester about the unfortunate incident with the policeman who died trying to save people and that's a problem with Massachusetts. I just finished up like this and I know a lot of people who else will be testifying this but there were 22 municipal plants in Massachusetts who are going to help the Navajo Nation project and I do know that there are quite a few municipal like plants that are interested, if not already pursuing streetlight maintenance services for other towns.
And so this is not just a one-off issue for just Mansfield and Foxborough, it's a bigger issue and I think as I said, this bill would help support that employees working in the direction of the authority of their employer should be covered for the time and benefits and that's what this bill hopefully supports. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Oh, that's great. No, uh, thank you. And I know there was, uh, one of the panellists, so
okay, what is going to speak? Okay, good morning, uh,
[???] [HB3257] Good morning, Chairman Roy, and Chairman Barrett. Thank you for hosting us here this morning. I'm just going to add to joe's comments. You know, this is an important issue for us in the sense that, you know, we acquired the streetlights in Foxborough several years ago and currently we contract out with with a private vendor to do this work but you know, it made perfect sense to us that, you know, with the quality work that Mansfield provides and being a neighbour that we do a lot of regional work with already. You know, we have regional dispatch as well as regional saw regional purchasing, we do a number of things together and we worked601 really, really well together. So this is another opportunity for us to continue to pursue a regional approach to the way we do business.
This is an impediment that's been there for a while and if it certainly helps the other communities of the like plants around the state, certainly, I think that's a byproduct618 of what we're trying to achieve here. But I do think that this is something that really made sense just from the outset, we've been trying to get it done. But obviously, this is something that has to be addressed before we get to that point. So we appreciate any support that the committee could provide in reporting this out favourably so we can get it to the floor for a vote but I do think this is something that truly makes sense and everybody seems to agree with and something that I think would help just the whole course of doing regionalization statewide. So, thank you again for hosting and happy to answer any questions. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much for your testimony. And before I open it up for questions, let me just ask is kevin Duma's, did he arrive?
Doesn't look like it. Okay. Did any members of the committee have any questions for the witness? Is
[SEN BARRETT:] I do have a question Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank our witnesses for testifying. Could you explain to members of the committee the exact change in state law that makes possible the resolution of these problems? I didn't quite understand the mechanism or the alteration that puts things right.
[SOLLECITO:] I do believe Rob Rodophele's here representing MEAM, which is the Municipal Electric Association Massachusetts, so, I'll do my first attempt at it, and Bob will certainly make sure I said it correctly. Thank you for the question. So, what we have this legislation drafted, we had in mind that it would be put under 164 and that the same benefits that are under another statute are still covered. So in other words, all employees working under 164 which is a municipal light plant legislation, or existing legislation, and thus having it under that, referring to the same benefits that are covered, I don't know if you got the reference of 47B, I'm not sure what the reference is but Rob will know when he speaks on it, but that's the consistency of what we were trying to756 achieve. Are that any services that the employees are working under us, a municipal light plant, they would be covered for retirement and health care benefits in case of injury.
[BARRET:] First of all, we'll certainly look forward to Mr. Rob's testimony and I'm not trying to press you to move into areas that are a little further afield but I want to understand currently, if one is working in a single town as an employee of Municipal Light plant, presumably one has a lot of benefits, including some of the benefits that are being denied in this particular configuration. Am I right about that? And what is it that put these activities for these employees beyond the range of benefits ordinarily accorded to employees of municipal light departments? Or am I missing something?
Senator, if I may, I'll just try to restrict my comments to those questions. The concern is you know what actually if you would wait until you testify and uh if these witnesses can't answer, we'll address it, then thank you. Yeah. And
[SOLLECITO:] From my understanding, the830 letter that we got from Iraq back in 2019 and 2020 is basically saying that the municipal plant employees would be covered for any work that's on within their jurisdiction and any work under emergency mutual aid, anything outside of those two conditions would not be covered. So therefore that's the reason for the legislation drafted in front of you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. We look forward to hearing more. Yeah. Are there any other committee members who have questions? And one thing I'd ask if you do have a question to use the hand raising function in zoom so that I can see you on the list
and I'm seeing no further questions. I want to thank Representative Barrows and your panel for your testimony and we look forward to hearing from Mr Roeder field shortly, uh to clear up some any other issues that may be out there. But thank you for your testimony At this time, I would like to move on to Senator Eldridge891 who is here to testify on S 21 71 an act removing barriers for municipal power communities to become green communities. thank you, Mr Sharon. I'm honoured to be called. I had 12 12 J. Barroso on here. So I'm
I tell you a little left out that I'm not listening to G Barrows, but um but913 no,
[SEN ELDRIDGE:] [SB2171] Thank you so much for taking me out of918 turn to you and to Chairman Barrett and members of the committee on Telecommunications, facilities and Energy. I am proud to file this bill, it's a new bill with Representative Danilo Senna, an act to remove barriers for municipal power communities to become green communities. And this came out of a very specific case out of the town of Boxborough, which is served by the Littleton Electric light but because it hasn't been able to connect to an investor-owned945 utility cannot become a green community. So, we feel like this is a solution for Boxborough and its residents who in my opinion, a majority would like to become bring the community.
A little bit of quick background is the Department of Energy Resources, DOER, Green communities Division has played a critical role in heating over 300 communities in Massachusetts, including helping you know, that almost all of them become green communities. And of course, the Green Communities Grant program is funded in part by investor-owned utilities, that it the big utility companies and municipal power plants or facilities are not eligible for the grant program since they don't pay into it unless they pay a renewable energy charge. The carve-out established years ago by DOER is just one customer in the town served by immunity is an investor own utility customer like National Greater Ever Source, the entire town can become1003 a green community.
Ultimately, however, there are some communities that don't even have that one customer served by an IOU and so that is the reason for this bill. The specifics for Boxborough is that Littleton electric light serves the town of Boxborough as well as another town. Littleton is participating in the Green Communities program because it did1026 find an IOU customer, but Boxborough was not able to do that and so under the current structure, Littleton electric light would have to choose to adopt the renewable energy charge, which currently does not pay and apply it to all the customers in Littleton and Boxborough.
The challenges that Littleton electric light, you know, has not been willing, commissioners have1048 not been willing to do that and so this bill would allow municipalities like Boxborough to become green communities, and adopt the renewable energy charge without requiring the charge go to other communities. In this case, a little too service by the Municipal light plan. And so if that community, in this case, Boxborough voted to become a green community, it would then be eligible for financial support from the Green Communities grants administered by DOER. So this is something that we talked about in great detail with Littleton electric light, with also municipal light, I don't want to speak for them, but we were in consultation with them to draft this bill.
I would just say, I appreciate, particularly Senator Barrett's leadership last session, in the beginning,1115 this year, you know, is one of1117 the co-authors of the next generation road map law. We made progress in that law and require you needs to move to renewable, more renewable energy, which is great but I think we always need to do more and in this case, this is the town of Boxborough, looking to do more. In my opinion, this bill would allow them to be more energy-efficient and embrace solar and other clean energy policies. So, I appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill and respectfully ask that it be reported favourably. Thank you so much and thanks for taking me out of turn. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much for your testimony. There are questions from many members of the committee.
I have one Mr chairman please. Uh
[BARRETT:] Thank you very much, Senator Eldridge. You raise an interesting issue here the town of Boxborough is raising it with you. Could you tell us administratively how this would work? Could you tell us how the charge would be1177 collected from residents of Boxborough presumably by the Littleton Municipal Light Department and then remitted to the state? How would the cash flow go?
[ELDRIDGE:] Yes. So, first, you know, if the bill were to become law then residents of Boxborough probably at town meeting would vote to become a green community and then the charge would be levied by Littleton Electric light would flow to the state, I believe to DOER and then we would be eligible for grants through DOER and then to other big communities allow. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So that's my understanding of how it works. Thank you. Senator. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And I see that machine. Oh has a question Right. The machine on the floor is yours? Thank you. Uh
[REP MESHINO:] Senator, I was just curious; is this just for Boxborough1230 or would this impact any other Municipal light plants?
[ELDRIDGE:] Yeah, thanks for your question, Representative. This is a statewide local option bill because we have found that there are other communities that are served by mini power facilities and want to become a green community but they couldn't find that one customer in their town served by an IOU but it's a local option, so it would only be if that town served by a mini power facility voted to join us. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
So. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Mr Chairman can I? I'm sorry to interrupt but I just want to make mention the fact that Senator Pacheco has joined us as a member of the committee representing the Senate. Great, thank you so much. And Senator Eldridge, I don't see any other questions. I thank you for your testimony and look forward to reviewing the bill with the rest of the committee. Thank you. Chairman. Right, thank you. I appreciate it. And at this time I note that Representative Michael kush Merit is uh here to testify on H 3331 and act relative to the establishment of municipal lighting authorities. Representative push Merit the floor is yours?
[REP KUSHMEREK(] [HB3331] Good morning, Chairman Roy, Chairman Barrett and distinguished members of the committee. I appreciate your time this morning and the opportunity to testify before you. I'm speaking regarding H 3331, an act relative to the establishment of municipal lighting authorities. As you may recall, the city of Fitchburg made national1320 news in 2008 when it made the decision to turn off street lights and while many attributed this to the economic downturn, it wasn't the housing crisis, it wasn't the great recession that broke the city's budget, it was exorbitant prices charged by the utility company Littleton, but Fitchburg had no other option.
Utility companies have a monopoly on our electric infrastructure, we all know that and so what other options do municipalities like Fitchburg and Lunenburg have? If Fitchburg and neighbouring towns wish to buy the electrical infrastructure, Unitel has made it known that they would not sell their infrastructure at anywhere near market rates and in fact, they would veto any such attempt to acquire their infrastructure. When you ask why it's because their profit margin at the region expenses is too large to resist. The municipal energy companies, you've heard numerous discussions already this morning about how municipal energy companies can offer low cost, safe and reliable electricity, and repairs are carried out more quickly, while rates are often more reasonable, if not the cheapest to ratepayers in the commonwealth.
However, most of these municipal light companies were established many decades ago, and for the rest of us, who didn't have enterprising forefathers, who set their town or city up with the municipal electrical system from the beginning, what can we do? Utility companies often refused to sell infrastructure at market rates and so municipalities like Fitchburg and Lunenburg are stuck with these corporate entities, who can prevent us from accessing their infrastructure through acquisition. H 3331 can change this, this bill ensures that if the municipality and its voters choose to purchase the physical infrastructure for a privately owned utility company, that company must then sell their infrastructure to municipalities at market rates.
This bill would compel the utility companies to sell that infrastructure to the municipality at a fair standard rate as determined by FERC in conjunction with the Department of Public utilities. Quite simply, what this bill does to boil it down is it eliminates the utility companies' ability to exercise a veto over a transaction. If the municipality wishes to build a sidewalk in front of your street, they would be offered eminent domain, and while you might challenge the amount being offered by the municipality, you don't get to exercise veto power over the municipality. However, our utility and electric companies have a power that our ratepayers and our residents do not have, they have the power of the veto. So this bill would eliminate a veto over such a transaction.
This bill would make sure that no city or town which wants to set up its own municipal light plant, would be prohibited from doing so by the refusal of utility companies to sell that infrastructure, again, at a fair market rate. Municipalities like Fitchburg and Lunenburg could take back control of their energy1526 supplies and offer constituents the possibility of reasonable rates, efficient local service, and to the points that Senator Eldridge and Representative Senna brought up, you know, an opportunity through local options to pursue a greener and more renewable alternative to their local ratepayers. AI respectfully asks that you report this bill favourably to the committee and I thank you for your time and consideration today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, thank you for your testimony. And uh I'm looking to see if any members of the committee have any questions.
I do not see any hands up in the chat. Thank you so much for your testimony and look forward to reviewing the bill. Uh at this time we're going to turn to Representative Michael Day who was going to testify on age 30-86,
representative day. You have the floor J. Milroy,
[REP DAY:] [HB3286] Thanks very much. Great to see you, Chair Barrett as well as members of the committee. I'll be exceedingly brief, this is hopefully a very simple bill and I know when Reps say that it becomes everything aback, but H 3286 is an act relative to reasonable municipal expense reimbursement.1592 It would allow and empower the EFSB to award fees to municipalities that are1599 incurred in a reasonable manner, it doesn't require them to do so, it requires them to consider the application for fees from the municipality relating to an application of a power project or a project going through their boundaries.
As you all know, when the applications go through,1620 the cities and towns often incur expenses in reviewing the application, as well1624 as undertaking studies that are related to the application. Sometimes the applicants themselves will pay for those studies, other times it's left to the cities and towns to1635 foot the bill for those. This would simply allow1638 the FSB to award fees if it so determines that there occurred reasonably and that the1641 municipality should be reimbursed for them. So that's it, it adds clause 5 to section 69 H and would again simply now allow the EFSB to assess fees as appropriate in their own discretion. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Well, MR1654 Chairman, thank you very much for your testimony. Um I ask at this point, are there any committee members who have any questions? I do have a question. MR Chairman. Great,
[BARRETT:] Thank you very much for testifying, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that in most cases any fees collected with a lot of change would have would be assessed, of course, ultimately, on the ratepayers, the charges would be perhaps paid by the utility at first blush, but then entered into the right base and ultimately collected from all the utilities customers. I'm concerned about the potential implications, it sounds1697 like an intriguing idea, but I'm concerned at a time when we're talking about grid mod and when we're talking about the need for a significant investment in our electric utility infrastructure, in order to take advantage of the proliferation of distributed energy sources and to make sure the grid can be robust enough to charge all the electric vehicles we're going to need and all the electric heat pumps we're going to need. I am somewhat concerned at the possibility that every transmission line needed to modernize the grid would generate fees charged to ratepayers at a time when those electric rates may already be under severe pressure because of the expansion of the grid itself.
Who's done a good cost analysis on what the potential cost transfers would be. If your bill were to become law and suddenly every town in Massachusetts was petitioning the energy facility citing board for the ability to levy additional fees effectively on ratepayers?
[DAY:] Thanks, Chairman Barrett, I think the question is kind of an impossible one to answer and that this again, is simply enabling the EFSB to assess fees at their discretion, it's not required to do so. When you've got a question of a power project coming through your district necessarily, that municipality is going1797 to look into the implications of the ramifications of it and they can then petition the EFSB to say what we did was reasonable in protecting our own constituents, our own residents, and therefore the cost of that, in your discretion, the FSB should be spread out, if that's the way that it's going to be handled by the utility to the ratepayers, it shouldn't be born only by the municipality that has to incur the infrastructure upheaval in their boundaries.
So again, I don't think it's1829 going to be a question you can answer as far as a cost analysis because it's going to be a case by case basis, and again, up to the FSB at their discretion. So if there's a fee that's wildly out of line, the EFSB says1856 we're not going to entertain that and move along. If it's a, you know, an honesty fee where they wanted to take a traffic study based on tearing up of the streets in the downtowns, they can say, well, you know what, we will reimburse you for that traffic study because1871 that's a reasonable request.
[BARRETT:] So I could just ask a question, I appreciate that but I think this exercise of discretion by the Energy Facility Siting Board Representative may come under a lot of pressure. I'm not even sure they have the legal basis for denying reasonable fees in one case but granting it in others. It seems to me that there could be thousands and thousands1895 of instances over the course of the next 10 years, where the fees sought to be collected are reasonable and where the cumulative impact on electric rates across the state could be significant. I guess I'm asking whether we should load additional costs which are currently paid through other channels onto the electric rate base at a time when electric rates are probably are going to become a bigger and bigger issue already as we seek to modernize the grid. I don't see the energy facility siting boards saying no very often to reasonable requests, it isn't even in their jurisdiction to protect consumers in terms of electric rates, that's the DPUs. Jurisdiction. So I would think that the energy facility siting board would have to say yes, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times, what do you think?
[DAY:] Yes, I don't presume to anticipate legal challenges and the success or failure of those legal challenges to be EFSB's decisions here. I suppose I'd come across on the side of the municipality that is incurring these giant infrastructure projects coming through and instead of forcing that municipality and those residents to absorb that cost entirely, which I think is what your premises as it's done now, this allows the EFSB to say, you know what, we're going to give it a relief to this municipality because they've got this giant project because they've got an obligation to their constituents to make sure that the projects are appropriate1985 and our interfering with the actual functioning in the municipality. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Representative, Thank you. MR Chairman. Those are all my questions. Thank you sir very much for helping me out think about this. Well, thank you. Mr Chairman. I I do not see any other questions and I thank you for your testimony and look forward to reviewing the bill. Thank you appreciate that very much. Thanks all and Representative Xena, I know that you were interested and also testifying on the act removing barriers for municipal power plants if you are ready the floors us Representative.
[REP SENA:] [HB3369] Thank you, Chairman Roy, Chairman Barrett and members of the committee. I'm here in support of the same bill that Senate Eldridge testified; that is an act removing barriers for municipal power communities to become green communities, it's H 3369. This bill would basically allow Boxborough as one of my children in my district had requested to be in the green community and it wants to meet our goals for 2050, one way to do it is by allowing them to become a green community. For some reason, the rules are that you have to have at least one household supplied by a for-profit electric utility, that's one of the rules or have a municipal like playing charged residents for all towns it serves a monthly fee to go for a renewable energy trust.
So this bill if passed, basically would allow all municipalities in Massachusetts to have access to state programs that will help them adopt more sustainable and environmentally, frankly energy practices. Massachusetts hopefully will then move to meet its goals for 2050, the Climate road map bill that we passed. So I urge that members of the committee will look at this bill and report it favourably and as well as you, Mr Chairman, I appreciate the time today. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any members of the committee who have any questions uh for Representative Sina?
Okay. Seeing none. I'm going to now turn to the list of folks who have registered to testify in the order that they have registered to testify. And uh one thing I've neglected to mention at the beginning, if anybody uh wants to know how much time they have left, you can look in the chat and uh there is. Our timekeeper is giving one minute 32nd, 12th warning. So you'll know exactly where you are in your testimony. And with that I'm going to turn the floor over to Matthew hannon Matthew where you give
not hearing from? Matthew. So uh and I know kevin Duma's. Has he arrived yet?
I mean if I may uh
tom manager uh kevin demonstrate, just called and said he apologized but he's got something commitment so he couldn't make it. I apologize. Okay. And we've already heard from joseph sollecito. So I'll turn it now to Caroline brit Caroline. Are you here with us today?
Last call for Caroline brit.
Then I will next turn to Vincent. Rue Gucci. Vincent, are you with us? Yes.
Good morning. Mr. Chairman. Great, Nice to see you. Likewise.
VINCENT RAGUCCI - READING MUNICIPALITY LIGHT DEPT - HB3327 - SB 2199 - Good morning to you, good morning to Chairman Barrett. I'm Vincent Ragucci and representing this morning, the Reading Municipal Light Department. Rather than get into the testimony we've provided electronically, testimony in favour of both house bill 3327 and Senate Bill 2199 which are duplicate submissions. We've also submitted some suggested language that I believe leader Jones can speak a little bit too as well. The proposed language would amend 3327 and 2199, whichever vehicle is the best to move forward and allow municipal light plants which have multiple communities like reading does to join the Green Communities program at their own pace.
As it's been described and discussed earlier by Representative Sena and Senator Eldridge, the idea is, if you're a municipal light plant that represents multiple communities, it's almost a segregation of whether you have one of those IOUs that touch and or have a customer in your territory that makes you eligible. What we're trying to resolve here is the ability for all of our members to continue to join Green Communities and be part of the Green Communities program by making these changes. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for Mr Haraguchi, Just a quick one? Mr Chairman. If I could. Uh
[BARRETT:] Thank you, Mr. Ragucci, for your testimony. Would the bill that you've heard described here that's being advanced by Representative Sena and Senator Eldridge solve the problem that worth Reading and Reading are engaged with that solution or they're different pieces of legislation that would do2380 different things. And if so, what are those different things?
2384 [RAGUCCI:]2384 So2384 there are four bills that are currently on the docket today that are really two bills filed both in the House and the Senate and the Boxborough Littleton version is one way to approach it. What it does not do is exempt the municipality from paying into the renewable trust. What2405 we're proposing is to say that the reading2408 system, so Reading is the host system, but the system is comprised as you're2415 aware of North Reading, Wilmington and a section of Lynnfield, what we're proposing is that one customer in their system, just like any other community would have one customer in their system, would make them eligible, therefore exempt from having to2437 pay into the trust. Also allowing each of them at their own individual pace.
As you know, you're talking about four communities is trying to make a decision on entering green communities at the same time. It's probably difficult enough for one to do it at once because there are a number of criteria that they need to meet and it's an investment in making that commitment. So what we're proposing is a slightly2474 different version of achieving the problem or solution to the problem. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, Mr Chair. If I2480 could just follow up out.
2483 [BARRETT:]2483 Thank2483 you, sir, very much. My understanding is that when a community served by an IOU becomes the green community and I could be wrong about this by the way, so maybe someone in2496 this hearing can enlighten me, but my understanding is that there is a kind of reciprocity that ensues. It is true that the community served by the IOU once it elects to become a green community becomes eligible for grants, but it's also the case that they make a contribution.
The ratepayers, I should say pay a fee into the trust, are you proposing here that the ratepayers of the four towns or any one of the towns pay a fee as do those who are served by an IOU or are you proposing that one or more of the communities served by the Reading Municipal Light Department gets to be a green community without it customers paying the fee? Are you putting your local constituents on an equal footing or is there a kind of cross-subsidy that customers of the RMLD would be able to tap into since customers of IOU are paying a fee and perhaps they would not be great?
[RAGUCCI:] Great question, Mr. Chairman. My answer to that is it's complicated. We're proposing at least in what we've submitted to include as I said earlier, the RMLD District would be all four communities together because that's what makes up their system. In their specific case, we think there are two communities that have IOU customers out of the four but that still doesn't resolve the issue. The bottom line is right now, there is no ability because it's kind of the opposite of if reading wants to enter2605 then each of the2606 other three communities would have to2610 pay into the trust. So that would have2614 to be collected and paid and you know and they may not have any interest at all in joining today.
So the proposed language would allow them to make that decision when they're ready to do it but it would also allow reading if they wanted to apply right away and become a member. I think it's for debate on whether two of the four should pay or not and whether the entire reading system should be counted as one system instead of four different communities.
[BARRETT:] I look forward to learning more about this topic, sir. I don't pretend to be an expert, but I can tell you that the operative question for me is going to be whether there would be free riders and whether some would be able to become eligible for grants without paying the corresponding fee. I think there's probably going to be an overwhelming interest in avoiding the free-rider problem and making sure that all participants are susceptible to fees in an equal way but that's just a guess on my part in terms of how the committee members will come down for me. Personally, I want to make sure there are no cross-subsidies.
I would love to see Reading North Reading in Wilmington and part of I'd love to see those communities become green communities, don't get me wrong. I know those communities extremely2752 well, extremely well. I presume they would that there would be no free-rider cross-subsidies that would be triggered. What do you think?
[RAGUCCI:] I think we would be open to making that amendment. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, sir. If I might just quickly um, please ask video question.
[BRADLEY JONES:] So, are there other MLPs now they're in green communities that are not paying in because they're under the existing paradigm?
[RAGUCCI:] Yes. So what's interesting is Boxborough Littleton's example, Littleton is a member, Boxborough isn't, and, Littleton is the host. So Boxborough would be, you know, right now, by the rules deemed ineligible unless there was a change to the law. There are 25 municipal light plants that are currently green communities and what we're discussing today, there are six that serve multiple communities to be exact, those six municipal light plants represent 15 more communities. So, it would open up additional communities to the chairman's point to become green communities, which is at the end of the day the main point.
[JONES:] I guess the question I was having is our existing MLPs that are green communities, do they all charges today have a system benefits charge or the exempt because they get in and out of the existing statute with no change?2856
[RAGUCCI:] The majority of the 25, all but three are exempt.
[JONES:] Okay. So theoretically in response2860 to Senator Barrett's question, they would argue to be free riders under the existing system. In addition,2866 I would raise the question that I2868 believe all the MLDs pay into Reggie but are ineligible for Reggie funds in which case they are arguable, this would be an uh and after an equitable relief if you will since they have for years been paying into Reggie but have been ineligible for any benefits from the funds generated by Reggie, so RLD and the four communities have been paying in but even ineligible for any grants whatsoever?
[RAGUCCI:] I wouldn't say any grant but direct.2898 We have been working closely with DOER on special programs that include the MLP solar program, which has been extremely successful. We've worked on the Streetlight Grant program and those have used special DOER funds, which I believe all are in part come from the Reggie program.
[JONES:] Just one last question, Mr. Chairman, from a billing standpoint, I would assume that if our MLP if some statutory change was made, MLD 123 or four of the communities could opt-in and if ultimately it was determined2943 that they needed to pay assistant benefits to charge, that could be fairly easily handled administratively in terms of collecting. So if reading said, oh yes, we want to be in, we will pay the system benefits charges, I believe that the statute is capped currently and would apply in this case, they could do it and you know, maybe in time other towns would choose to get into the system?
[RAGUCCI:] Correct. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Okay, thank you. MR Chairman. I appreciate the time. Thank you.
[BARRETT:] Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask a follow-up question and I look forward to the House Minority Leader educating me on this topic but it would never occur to me that the decision about whether to pay a system benefits charge would be up to the municipality. It might represent a net expense for the municipality so you wouldn't want to make it voluntary?
[JONES:] No, no, the question, you know, Mr. Chairman and I was making the point that it may be up to the community whether to join, knowing upfront that if they joined, they have to pay the system benefits fair charge. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much.3009 That's a good clarification. Thank you. Mr Chairman. Thank you very much. I do not see any further questions and I thank you for your testimony. Mr Gucci and look forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you. Mr.
At this time we'll move on to leah Robbins from M. A. P. C. Leah. Are you with us? Record, yep, just one second. Let me there you are. How are you today? Mr Chairman. Very good. See you now. Wonderful. Um
[LEAH ROBINS(MAPC):] [HB3327] [Thank you so much for the opportunity to offer testimony today. I'm with MAPC, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council Regional Planning Agency for 101 cities and towns in greater Boston. We are working every day with municipalities to reduce their carbon footprints and address vulnerabilities caused by climate change. I'd like to offer comments on two bills today. The timely removal of double poles and on the municipal light plant served community participation in the Green Communities program. On double poles, although MGL Chapter 1 64 Section 34 B does require the timely removal of old utility poles after the installation of the replacement pole. The statute doesn't include any penalties for failure to remove the old poll and oftentimes, it takes months or years to remove those redundant pools.
MAPC believes that a modest financial incentive for the utilities to remove those double poles in a timely manner will lead to better service by the utility companies, safer communities and more aesthetic streetscapes. On the municipal light plant serves communities,3104 we are really eager to be part of this conversation and work with you as more communities are interested in joining the successful statewide program. The tools offered by the Green Communities division will enable3116 more communities to be part of this work so that we can reach our net-zero3122 emissions target for the commonwealth. Thank you so3124 much for the opportunity to testify today and I'll be following up with more written comments afterwards. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
I appreciate that. It's good to see you again. Are there any questions from many members of the3141 committee?
I see no hands up in the participant box. So I thank you for your testimony and look forward to reviewing the bill and at this time would turn it over to rob Hanneman rob. Are you with us?
[ROB HANNENMANN(REGIONAL SUSTAINABLE ENERGY COMMITTEE):] [HB3301] Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman. I'm here to comment on H 3301, the community empowerment bill. I thank you for the opportunity to make a comment. I'm currently Chair of the Chilmark Energy Committee as well as the leader of our regional Sustainable Energy committee here on Martha's vineyard. As background, we've been working for the last five years um to begin to address the climate crisis here on the island locally. Four of our six towns on Martha's vineyard are now green communities, and the two remaining have passed all the criteria and will be applying for green community status very shortly. Five of our six towns have recently passed 100% renewable warrant articles that basically set aspirational goals for our island and in particular, call for a reduction in the use of fossil fuels on the island, basically to 0 by 2040.
The commonwealth has of course made great progress In establishing transformation goals like this. We have this somewhat more aggressive goal because it's consistent with the3235 current consensus to limit warming to 1.5 c. This bill, H 3301 will be a really significant tool as we begin the hard work to actually take aspirational goals and turn them into action. That's really the basis for my attending this meeting, all six of our town energy committees support this bill and I would like to once again thank the chair and thank the committee for the ability to SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
comment.
Thank you very much for your testimony and I'll ask if any of the members of the committee have any questions for the witness.
I do not see any hands up in the participants. So I thank you for your testimony and look forward to reviewing the bill at this time. I turned it over to Karen, Herrick. Karen, are you with us
last call for Karen?
All right. At this point, we'll move on to Barbara Saltzman Barbara, you with us,
mm. Yes,
[BARBARA SALZMAN(CONCERNED CITIZEN):] Thank you very much. I'm from Boxborough, Mass and although I'm a member of our sustainability committee, I'm speaking as a private citizen because our committee has not had enough lead time to hold an official vote on this piece of legislation. Nevertheless, we have pursued becoming a green community for many years and we have repeatedly been told this would be impossible within the current regulations. As a final resort, our committee requested a meeting with Senator Eldridge, Representative Sena, our select board, Kelly Brown and others from the DOER to pursue legislative avenues. I'd like to thank this joint committee for holding this hearing and taking up this very important legislative action. I'd especially like to thank Senator3385 Eldridge and Representative Sena for sponsoring this legislation.
You've heard our story already, so3390 I won't repeat it, but I'd like to say that to implement the recently enacted climate law, we, Massachusetts must find ways to reduce our carbon emissions significantly. Towns that are designated as green communities can apply for funding to assist them in becoming more energy-efficient and moving towards net zero. But towns such as ours that have municipal life plans and especially those unlucky enough to lack any electric usage from an investor-owned utility have no access or may not have any access to these incentives to help the commonwealth accomplish the goals they put forward by the new climate law. Without uniform incentives but instead of a patchwork of inconsistently valued MLP rebate programs, these towns' relative lack of progress toward net-zero will impede the rest of Massachusetts from reaching the 2030 goals.
Our neighbouring towns have enjoyed significant financial awards from the Green Community program. The town of Littleton has received over $1 million from the green community program. I believe that it's fundamentally unfair that Boxborough is unable to participate in this program and urge you to pass this legislation to enable MLP towns such as ours to access these funds. Thank you very much. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony and3548 ask if any of the members of the committee have any questions.
I see no hands up and I thank3556 you indeed for your testimony and at this time I would like to turn it over to Richard Andre. Richard, are you with us?
Yes, I am Chairman Roy.
[RICHARD ANDRE(VINEYARD POWER COOPERATIVE):] [SB2153] [HB3301] Thank you so much and good morning to you and good morning Senator Barrett and the members of the committee. I am Richard Andre with vineyard power cooperative. We represent 3500 residents and businesses on Martha's vineyard and many of you may know us as the community partner for vineyard wind. We signed the first community benefits agreement in the nation with vineyard wind and we're now obviously3591 very, very happy and pleased that we're moving to construction on the nation's first offshore wind farm. I'm here to testify on behalf of Senate3601 Bill 2153 introduced by Senator Cyr, an act to empower communities to transition to renewable energy and also a related bill, Representative Fernandez, H 3301, an act powering the Cape and Island homes with offshore wind energy.
The bills are similar, they are just slightly different in geographical scope. Representative Fernandez's bill is limited to a pilot program for the Cape and Islands whereby Senator Cyr's bill covers the whole commonwealth. This bill in the past has had over 50 co-sponsor, it's been widely supported in the legislature, some of you have been co-sponsors, and I3644 thank you for that previous support. It's also been widely supported in the environmental and clean energy scope. What this bill enables is cities and towns the ability to aggregate their resident's electricity buying power to support specific renewable energy projects of the community's choosing. So it democratizes choices in which where a community can support specific projects.
And I say democratizes with a small d of course, and enabling them to enter into long term contracts, thereby stabilizing electricity and allowing communities to do more than the state's current requirements on renewables. We do hear a lot of this from constituents and other communities across the commonwealth. As you may know, there are over two dozen communities that have recently passed non-binding resolutions to be 100% renewable. I heard the testimony of Mr. Hanneman just recently pointing out that five of the six towns on Martha's vineyard have already chosen to do that by 2040. We also see cities and towns such as Lexington, Ashlyn, and Arlington also looking at home rule petitions to do more when it comes to renewables.
For example, in those cases, passing home rule petitions that would require new buildings and major renovations to be 100% electric. Community empowerment with these two bills and act to empower communities is in that same spirit enabling towns to do more than the state's requirements and definitely within the tradition of the commonwealth to allow communities3743 to make these choices. I thank you so much for allowing me to testify this morning and look forward to answering any questions you may have for me. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony. I'll first look at the committee to see if there are any questions.
I do not see any questions and I thank you very much for your testimony and hope you're enjoying some beautiful weather over there on the vineyard. Thank you. Chairman Roy uh3778 next3778 witnesses Francine oldie francie I see you with us. So you have the floor.
[FRANCIE NOLDE(SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE):] Thank you so much. I'm delighted to be here to represent myself as3787 a resident of Boxborough. I am chairman of the sustainability committee and forever eloquently stated, or plead for help to become a green community. I just wanted to thank Senator Eldridge and Representative Sena for their response to our desperate call for help. We have tried for 20 years ever since we were formed as Eco Path Energy Group3815 and now sustainability to find3817 ways to become a sustainable community through the Green Communities Act. And we've had our hands tied so many times and we watched all3829 our neighbours do so well with the support of the green community.
So I do3835 want to thank all of you on the committee and those who are speaking about this issue. It's terribly important to be able to go forward for all of our towns, not just the majority of the towns and we want to contribute to. So it looks like it will be a fairly small amount that citizens will have to pay, on average, it could be 30 cents a month for those who have larger consumption, that would be a little bit more but I think it's a good investment. I know we'll have to convince the townspeople to make it, I think we can do that. So thank you for your support. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you so much for your testimony. I looked at the committee to3888 see if there are any questions
uh, seeing none. I will move on at this time to martin killer martin. Are you with us? Yes, I am.
[MARTIN CULIK(CAPE LIGHT COMPACT GOVERNING BOARD):] [HB3360] Good morning Chairman, Royal Chairman Barrett in the committee. My name is Martin Culik. I'm the chair of the Cape Light compact governing board and a resident of the town of Orleans. I am here to testify in support of House Bill 3360. The Cape White compact is a municipal aggregator consisting of the 21 Cape Cod and Martha's vineyard towns and is organized as a joint powers entity under MGL 40. The compact was organized in 1997 as a result of the passage of the Electric Restructuring Act and has been administering ratepayer from energy efficiency programs on the Cape and Vineyard since 2001, reinvesting approximately $350 million dollars in ratepayer funds back into our towns and saving approximately 5.18 billion kilowatt-hours.
For 20 years, the compact towns have embraced the spirit and intent of the objectives in both the Electric restructuring Act and the Green Communities Act in the development of energy efficiency investment plans. The compacts plans are developed with significant local stakeholder involvement and our energy efficiency programs reflect the unique needs of Cape and vineyard communities. It was by engaging and listening to our residents, businesses and municipal officials that the compact was able to determine barriers to program participation and the best ways to address these barriers. As a result, the compact was able to pioneer the following cost-effective energy efficiency offerings, some of which have been adopted statewide.
Municipal incentives up to 100% incentives for all cost-effective measures for municipalities. This resulted in all Cape and vineyard municipalities being the first to change their municipal-owned streetlights. to high efficiency led street lights. Moderate-income customers offering 100% incentives for all cost-effective measures in house income verification enables eligible customers, not on a utility discount rate to participate in the compacts, low income and efficiency program. The compact's ability to pioneer these programs originates in the legislature's express authority to develop and offer energy efficiency plans.
The compact would like to continue to offer cost-effective energy efficiency programs. House Bill 3360 would preserve this authority4068 by harmonizing the laws governing the administration of municipal energy efficiency plans. Thank you for your time and consideration today. I appreciate the opportunity to testify and to offer compact strong support for House bill 3360. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
martin. Thank you very much for your testimony. I will check with the members of the committee to see if there are any questions.
[BARRETT:] I do have a question, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. Culik for your fine work with the compact. You're quite enough. On Friday of this week, I believe that's the4110 25th of June, the Climate Act of 2021 takes Legal Effect. It was signed by the Governor on March 26th and 90 days will have passed. At that point, a new legal standard is imposed on the compact as well as on the IOUs, all of whom operate under the Mass save the brand and that new legal standard which immediately becomes effective for the compact is that all elements and energy efficiency programs must be evaluated for cost-effectiveness, including but not limited to and I'm using the legal language here, the social value of greenhouse gas emissions reductions.
The Energy efficiency advisory council at the state level, which will review the complex already proposed plans for 2022-2024 will be the first body legally required in its evaluation of your proposals for 2020-2024 to take note of this new legal standard. I want to ask4178 you what, thinking, preparatory work has been done within the management of the compact, I know your chair of the board is there to make sure that this strenuous and demanding new standard is honoured and by the way the legislature enacted this legal standard and opposed it on municipal aggregators like the compact because while we appreciate that energy efficiency is important in its own right and certainly contributes to reductions in greenhouse gases, nevertheless, we took note of the fact that mass-save programs in general, the compacts included did not set out to reduce emissions as a priority in and of itself.
And so, for example, your programs and the programs of the IOUs would often give financial incentives to4231 consumers to upgrade from an older gas system to a newer gas system or an older oil system or propane system to a more efficient oil or propane system and that would end it. There was relatively little thought given to a real focus on only incentivizing transitions from oil systems, let's say, to electric heat pumps which serve the environmental objective much more directly. So we're seeking to reorder activity by all mass-save participants, the House and the Senate have approved this new4264 legal standard. The 2022-2024 plan essentially needs to be rewritten or sent, or at least its cost-effectiveness calculations, which underlie it need to be recomputed. Are you folks ready to roll in those respects?
[CULIK:] Senator Barrett, I4284 can assure you that the Cape4287 light compact board as well as the staff, are actively anticipating the new legislation with our programs and for specifics, if it's okay with the chair, I would turn it over to Maggie Downer, our Executive director for details or she can do that in writing.
[BARRETT:] That would be fine, thank you. Mr Chairman, I'm sorry, I yield to you, I just want to make sure that we're ready to roll because this represents a new chapter in the compact fine work.
[CULIK:] We'll have some materials prepared and sent to you, Senator Barrett. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
if you send it to4332 both chairs, that would be great. And because I think that would be very useful information and I appreciate your testimony today. I do not see any other questions. So at this time I will turn it over to robert roder field and I apologize for cutting you off earlier but I knew you had a time slot here today. So, robert, the floor is yours. Uh
[ROBERT RODOPHELE(MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION MASS):] [HB3257] [SB2194] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the4385 committee, I appreciate the time. I'm here representing the Municipal Electric Association of Massachusetts, composed of all 40 municipal light plants in the commonwealth. They collectively provide approximately 13% of all energy demand and supply in Massachusetts. I am here4404 to testify briefly on two bills, one, of which we've touched on briefly, Representative Barrel's, Bill House 3257 which MEAM would support. I think there are some questions, perhaps I can clarify. What this legislation will do would specifically authorize municipal light plant boards or commissions to enter into agreements, to provide mutual aid to other cities and towns with respect to their electric assets that they may own, such as street lighting.
It would also specifically allow the municipal aeroplanes to participate in the projects, I think that the manager from Mansfield mentioned the tribal nation out in believing it was colorado to have their employees participate in those efforts as well. I would specifically allow the municipal light board or commission to enter into mutual aid agreements with other utilities in the state, outside of the state as well as governmental units, so the legislation would make that clear. In addition and particularly important I think as has been mentioned, is to make sure that the employees of the Municipal Light plan to participate in these types of activities and usually it's done on a voluntary basis would be covered under the current disability laws in Massachusetts in the event, there was an accident or something worse.
And there have been back and forth as to whether4503 they would be covered or not. There has been some case law that sort4510 of discusses when you're covered, when you are not covered. We want to make sure that the employees are protected. We think that this legislation really addresses that and that seems to be the key here. I think that was also discussed in4525 the unfortunate situation more recently where a police officer died while attempting to rescue a swimmer and the question became whether that was part of his duty as a police officer. Again, the effort here is to really clarify the existing ability for the light plants to enter into these kinds of agreements and to make sure their employees are protected.
So we want to support that bill, we're willing to obviously work with the committee if they have4555 any questions or concerns in terms of how the language is presented. In addition, one other bill I would like to indicate, the municipal electric association supports is Senate, 2194 filed by Representative Keenan, this is a refile bill; it's been around for a few years and attempts to bring more clarity to the public records and open meeting laws uh, for municipal light plants. Right now, the statute can be interpreted somewhat restrictively in terms of when public records might not be available, so in discussions with open meetings laws would not be applicable and that would be regarding the competitive marketplace as it relates to energy and power entities.
So clearly the legislature is deemed it appropriate that if you are talking about competitive information regarding energy and power entities, then executive session, whatever, maybe, maybe the appropriate avenue as well as a restriction on public records. However, over the years, there have been4619 inquiries made to municipal light plants from, might be the telemarketer people in the telecommunications area that isn't necessarily related to4629 energy and power. And that has created some angst as we say well as to whether they are obligated to provide customer records to these4640 entities that aren't the energy or power entities. So I'm going to be filing written testimony on that as well and I hope the committee would look favourably on that bill. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Also, Thank you very much for your testimony. The one thing I would ask when you do your written testimony on age 30-57, you had mentioned that there was some case law4692 out there on whether folks were covered employees. If you could include a section uh in your written testimony with citations to those cases, it would be much appreciated. Um Any questions from any members of the committee a brief when Mr chairman please.
[BARRETT:] Thank you, Mr. Rodophele, beautiful, we always benefit from your participation in these hearings. Could you talk to us about your views or your client's views with respect to the box4724 grow and north reading situations that we've heard about this morning? Do the organizations you represent have a position and if they haven't taken one, why haven't they taken one?
[RODOPHELE:] You know, Senator, that's a great question. The Municipal Electric Association has not taken a position on any of those bills. We have a pretty good understanding of the differences are the bills as you have heard, it's pretty complicated depending on where you are located and how many municipalities are served by your municipal light plants? So, for the moment, they have not taken a position on any of those bills. Further, as was previously4767 testified, a number of communities are in a number on or not. I would suggest, however, that they all participate through the Reggie fund. They all participate in helping those funds grow and those are the funds that are used in large pots for grants to the green communities. So the short4792 answer to your question is, at this time, the MEAM does not have a position on any of those bills but we would clearly be willing to work with the committee if they have any questions or concerns.
[BARRETT:] Just one fog question; I mentioned a free-rider problem that seems potentially to lurk and some of the legislation that would address this issue whereby communities would seek to become green communities without perhaps paying the charge. Am I understanding or misunderstanding the potential implication of these bills? What do you think?
[RODOPHELE:] Senator, I think the bills speak directly in different ways to that question. Clearly, there is an exemption from the further charge you're talking about about the 0.5 charges while the others are specifically included. So I think that your question is a valid one, again, we don't have a position on it, but I think that the two bills are clearly distinguishable in that regard. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you, sir. It is helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you and rep machine. Oh, I see you have a question. Floor is yours? Well.
[MESHINO:] Less a question and more of a comment. Mr. Chairman, this theme of a free rider is troubling to me since I represent a district with two municipal light plants and I can tell you speaking from personal experience as a black woman that there are two very different entities. And so when we're talking about the independent operators versus municipal light plants, we're talking about economies of scale here and I just want to remind the committee members and the chair, in particular, that in fact, municipal light plants operate on a very small municipal local level they have to do it themselves. So when you talk about the free riders, nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, when you think about what we have as a municipality have to contend with in terms of infrastructure as opposed to say an ever source or national grid, there's just such a difference of economy of scale. So if there's a grid modification to be made, the municipality has to do that themselves, and in fact, they do, and if you look at all the municipalities and the investments that they regularly make into their own infrastructure, and you look at the success rates on how they manage their infrastructure, in fact, you know, we're doing a great job on the local level and we're doing it ourselves. So for my part, I don't intend to speak4964 about whether or not there should be a surcharge, I will just reiterate what's already been said that we already pay into Reggie, which is substantial for small communities. We already are doing better than the state in terms of our carbon emission reductions, we are already as municipalities doing the incubators, right?
The innovation, and we should be letting municipalities participate in the Green Communities Act because it's we're already leading in these spaces and it's we're already leading in these spaces and there are other implications that flow from having that designation and that status beyond just whether or not you get a green communities grant, everyone's looking to align in the same direction. Um, now that we have the climate roadmap in place and I think that what I hear all of these bills, the theme is that we're doing it, we won't participate and I won't speak to any of the different bills and I even have a bill on this myself. Um, but I will just say that I really object5058 this free rider status because nothing could be further from the truth.
[BARRETT:] Thank you. Mr Chairman. If I might ask a question? First, I want to5069 thank my colleague on the committee. Thank you so much. It's instructive to5073 be told that one has settled on a verbal formulation. That is the furthest possible thing from the truth that a human has ever concocted. I think I deserve some credit. If that's true. Let's assume that5084 you're overstating the question just a little or stating your position a little bit. I represent communities. I grew up in Immunity Town myself. My first elected office was a state representative for Reading North Reading in5096 Wilmington. So I'm actually pretty familiar with this and I am unaware of data that shows the municipal light departments are consistently in the vanguard in terms of emissions reductions.
So I want to invite my house colleagues to submit to the committee data that indicates that light departments are5114 consistently leaders in this respect. That would be a revelation to me. I know individual towns are leaders. I hadn't known and hadn't heard until today that the entire system was a leader. What I see instead as I serve music like departments is a significant amount of variability. Finally, I do nevertheless wanna thank you for stoutly defending all municipal light departments against the dreaded um appellation of the free-rider. I didn't know that carried such a negative connotation, but nevertheless, I stand my ground here and I do want to maintain my worry and continue the dialogue with you about this.
I want to5157 maintain my worry that everyone who takes part in the green communities acts, all the consumers, whether they're IOU customers or municipal department customers should be paying the same benefits to charge on an even-handed basis. I think equity here is important, it's an important principle and I look forward to continuing this conversation with Representative Meschino. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you all. And I do not see any further questions. I thank you for your testimony and look forward to reviewing that bill. I will note that Karen Hair, it has arrived and is prepared to testify. So Karen the floor is yours.
Yeah.
Unless of course you don't want it.5203 That's okay too. Thank you. Mr Chair. I appreciate you. Got it. Excellent. Just in time I was sorry, multitasking and let me reorient myself.
KAREN HERRICK - RUNNING SELECT BOARD - SB 2201 - HB 3327 - Thank you both, Chair Roy and Chair Barrett. I appreciate this opportunity. My name is Karen Karen Herrick. I'm a 25 year resident of Reading and a current chair of the running select board. I would like to testify in support of Senate Bill 2201 House SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
and house bill
painted two years ago. Reading our journey.
I'm sorry. Yeah.
We're having uh we're having some difficulty with your testimony. All right. Yeah.
Close down in the rights.
Okay. Any better?
Uh huh.
Not really.
I'll ask if everyone who is not you did that. They could please mute their microphones. That might help.
And why don't you try once again?
Okay? Can you hear me now?
I don't know if it's just me. Is anyone else having trouble with the testimony?
Yeah. Uh if I could suggest um when I see Karen speak I also see Colleen McGlynn's thing on and it sounds like there's an echo and sometimes if you're on both as a resume and video and you dial and sometimes you get5324 that echo. So I don't know if that helps you, Karen.
Mm Let's say so. So I do not have my video on. Okay, now you're sounding much better.
HERRICK - Two years ago, Reading began our journey towards actively5359 reducing carbon emissions and embracing renewable energy sources in a manner that was fiscally responsible. It quickly became clear that the Green Communities program would be a cornerstone in this journey. It also became clear that there was a reason that no community was served by the largest MLP in the state that being Reading Municipal Light Plant had been able to join green communities. In a nutshell with the support staff at the MAPC, Reading learned that this 10-year-old program had been written in spite of the 40 plus local municipal5392 Light plants.
So in the intervening years, we all know much has changed, including the need for drastic energy conservation measures and a march towards electrification via renewable and non-carbon-producing energy sources. The committee has before a number of very positive acts which are in line with our collective goals of zero net emissions in the commonwealth and climate-sensitive local energy policies and practices. Senate Bill 2201 and House Bill 3327 would specifically address the regulatory shortcomings of the green communities programs with respect to municipal light plants and I believe it would encourage 100% adoption across the state. In a financial climate where state funding for my community and others is that are about 10% of general revenues and growing smaller as a percentage every year, becoming a designated green community would provide significant local capital funding to invest in long term projects that will directly reduce operating costs, improve our energy efficiency and reduce our emissions.
If these bills were to advance today and be signed by the Governor, Reading would be first in line with an application this fall. For 18 months, we've been hard at work on the prerequisite steps including adopting the building stretch code and fuel-efficient vehicle policy. And while I'm very concerned about the community I represent, I also encourage you community committee members to take positive action on these two bills because it would enable the roughly 20 odd remaining MLPs serving local communities to also join the program. I believe it is an essential and very realistic goal to have 100% participation in green communities if you advance this measure today. I thank you for your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony. I look to see if there are any questions for many members of the committee. I do have a question. Mr Chairman, please. You have the floor.
[BARRETT:] Thank you very much5518 for your testimony, Madam Chair. Could you speak to this benefit charge issue that we've been trying to ventilate this morning? Mr Rodophele, who's a smart attorney on these topics, distinguishes the two bills before the committee today. One would have the ratepayers, all the ratepayers and a community that joined the green communities paying a benefits charge as a condition upon participating and the other would not. What's your feeling about this?
[HERRICK:] Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's an excellent question. You know, I already alluded to the very um very stringent financial circumstances most communities find themselves in. What I understand about the current green communities legislation, is that the MLPs that have joined are a mix5570 of those being able to exercise a loophole that excludes the general populace from paying this charge and a number of MLPs and I don't know how many have decided to go ahead and pay the charge. I can't speak absolutely for Reading given the relatively small size of the charge and the importance of this program, I'm willing to suggest that Reading ratepayers would be willing to join the community even if the charge remains, although we5605 love it if we could further save some money, however, I should point out that we have a particular challenge; the way the legislation is written, Reading must act in lockstep with the other three communities, including North Reading, Linfield and Wilmington and in which case, I believe that our MLD has also put forth some testimony today to talk about how that might be addressed.
So as you can imagine, it's very difficult to be in lockstep with neighbouring communities in terms of becoming a green community. So we love these bills because it would alleviate the charge, but also because I believe it would free us from being on the same timetable as our neighbouring communities and that is really important as Reading is ready and I'm not sure the other communities are at this point, but we're doing our best to encourage them to also join. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
That's thank you, madam. Chair. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Um I do not see any other questions. So I thank you for your testimony and look forward to reviewing the bill. Uh next witnesses. Andrew got lee. Andrew you have the floor.
[ANDREW GOTTLIEB(ASSOCIATION OF PRESERVE CAPE COD):] [HB3360] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Andrew Gottlieb, I'm the executive director of the Association of Preserve Cape Cod. I'm here to speak in favour of House Bill 3360 which reaffirms a municipal aggregator's ability to develop an energy5695 efficiency plan that includes all programs and core initiatives of a statewide energy efficiency plan but also allows municipal aggregators to5706 include some cost-effective5707 special offerings or greater incentives for certain energy efficiency measures that reflect the unique needs of their communities. The need for this bill is a DPUs General disregard for existing law and legislation that expressly permits municipal aggregator energy efficiency plans to go further and do more than utility state energy plans. Given the climate crisis, we should be applauding cities and towns that want to do more, not hamstring them with endless DPU proceedings.
The 21 Cape and Vineyard towns propose unique enhancements in 2018 to serve low and moderate-income customers and it's still under review by DPU. Given the crisis that we have on climate and it felt particularly5764 acutely here on the Cape and Islands, given our vulnerability to rising seas and storms, we don't really have the luxury of allowing the DPU to continue to fiddle around with proposals that will improve energy efficiency while the world gets hotter. A direct and5781 clear affirmation of the ability of mystical aggregators to do more than the minimum is really only necessary because of DPU's recalcitrance and using existing authorities that you've already given them to the full benefit of the sector of our population, most impacted by climate change and the least well-positioned financially to deal with its repercussions. We would urge you on behalf of the residents of Cape Cod to support House bill 3360. I appreciate your time. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much. Are there any uh any questions from the committee? Just a brief when Mr Chairman please. And by the way, Mr Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to you for indulging me so frequently. These are interesting questions concerning which I don't know a great deal. So I'm trying to learn something. I appreciate it. Which
[BARRETT:] Mr. Gottlieb, can you isolate force exactly what the DPU doesn't permit you to do or can't have you do under current law? There's clearly a little bit of aggravation that you're expressing, a little bit of frustration, I should say on behalf of some of the most vulnerable folks on the Cape. I'm trying to understand the exact omission in current law that the DPU seems to be used in a way that disadvantages Cod residents.
[GOTTLIEB:] They're not necessarily prohibiting the Cape Light compact from doing what current law allows, what they are doing is tying up in endless reviews in hearings and administrative requirements, the actual ability of the Cape light compact to offer incentives that go beyond statewide minimums in particular. In this instance, a proposal to provide low and moderate-income customers, move them off fossil fuels and install an install air source heat pump paired with solar batteries and to and to provide small businesses with the sweetest services designed to help them reduce their carbon footprint. What this bill seeks to do. Senator is drawing a bright line almost by the right ability of municipal aggregators.
Once having demonstrated that these proposals meet all the cost-effectiveness tools measures to actually just be able to proceed with these without having to go back and be a slow walk through the process perhaps because and I don't know what the frankly what the intentions of the DPU are in doing this but you know, the experience has been that at times some of these more innovative, thoughtful ideas that are raised at the aggregator level are then subsumed by or being adopted by the large utility programs as a way to manage their portfolios in a way that behove them as opposed to doing what's in the shorter term best interests of both the region and the customers.
So this doesn't frankly give the municipal aggregators anything more than the legislature has already sought5991 to give them, it just provides a degree of certainty and cuts through some of the process delays that have thwarted I believe the intent of some of the previous acts you've adopted on our behalf.
[BARRETT:] Let me just make a request, first of all, thank you, Mr. Gottlieb. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to request that in writing. You communicate some more specificity here. Here's one difficulty that I'm having at the moment. The 2021 Climate Act materially changes the energy efficiency plan process in that, as I previously mentioned, a new legal standard, the social value of greenhouse gas emissions reductions now has to be incorporated into all the cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness calculations that are part of the so-called Mass-save process. So, the compact right now has a proposal for 2022-2024 for its next three-year energy efficiency plan. It's before the Energy efficiency advisory Council.
As you know, the EEAC. Because the Climate Act takes effect this Friday, the EEAC is reviewing your submittal, now have to take note in a new way of the importance of greenhouse gas emissions reduction as that evaluates what you want to do. I guess the thrust of your testimony today is that this new legal standard and this reorientation of Mass-save will not be sufficient to enable you to do something because things are being held up. The part that confuses me is, that I don't6115 know in what way the DPU is capable of holding up a municipal aggregator once the three-year energy efficiency plan for that aggregator has been approved. I did not even know that there was a parallel process whereby they could impede you even once your three-year plan has been approved, as it must be by January of 2022 for the ensuing three years.6144 So is this a matter of there having rejected something in a previous three-year plan that you would like to compel them to accept or is there something else I am misunderstanding?
[GOTTLIEB:] I like the Chair of the compact board6162 will differ a little bit of the detail, Maggie Downey, who's going to be proceeding to testify at some point during this hearing. But my best attempt to answer your question, Senator would be that we're not dealing with a situation where it was an outright rejection, but an approval so heavily conditioned on future submissions that functionally served as a line-item veto of a particular component that was in an otherwise approved plant. And I like you obviously can't tell the future as to whether or not the new language will preclude that kind of behaviour but I think what we're looking for here is legislation that makes it a bright line, a clear standard that within the context of what goes into effect on Friday, that should the standards be met, that the additional burdensome requirements for process and information that have hobbled the compact's ability to move forward with something that I think everybody agrees are the right place to go in, the right place to be directing our resources and the right target audience to whom to be directing them won't be allowed to recur in the future. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you Sir. Look forward to hearing your colleague's testimony later on and and and we most certainly will follow up both the testimony provided and some expanded discussion of the issues that you've raised to us. Thank you for your time,
Jeff. You're muted.
Thank you so much. I appreciate the testimony and look forward to the additional submissions at this time. Seeing no further questions, I would turn the floor over to Logan alec Logan. Are you still with us? Yes, I am. Good afternoon.
[LOGAN MALIK(MCAN):] [HB3327] [SB2171] Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Roy, Chairman Barrett for the opportunity to provide public comment today. My name is Logan and I'm the Clean Energy Director of the Massachusetts Climate Action Network or MCAN. MCAN6304 works with our 60 chapters and thousands of members across Massachusetts to implement climate solutions in local communities and many of our community members or the community members that we work with, live in municipal light plant districts and as such, we remain committed to ensuring that all MLP districts effectively transition to a clean energy future and have the tools at their disposal to do so.
With that being said, I am here today in support of an act removing barriers for municipal power6338 communities to become green communities sponsored by Senator Eldridge and Representative Sena. We've already heard the immense benefit that the Green Communities designation provides to municipalities across the state in their effort to reduce emissions and transition to a clean energy future. As we've also heard, communities like Boxborough, and Reading and I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention, I believe Taunton is facing a similar issue, has not been able to receive this designation, regardless of whether or not they meet the criteria.
So, we believe that S 2171 takes the necessary steps to amend the law and ensure that every community is eligible to apply for Green Community status and it does this in a way that ensures that there is substantial collaboration between municipalities and municipal light6398 boards, while also ensuring that those communities that participate contribute to the financial stability of the program by adopting the very small feed that has been discussed and deliberated over today. While MCAN believes that this is an effective way to address the issue, we remain open to other solutions, like the one proposed by H 3327 sponsored by Representative Jones.
Our main priority today is to ensure that the oversight in the law which has prevented several communities served by municipal light plants, is corrected and that all communities across the commonwealth have access to this program, which has been so beneficial and ensuring that that are municipalities are transitioning to a clean energy future. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your testimony and I'll see if there are any questions from any members of the committee.
I SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
am not seeing any questions. So thank you6478 for your testimony and I will now turn it over to Greg's finale. Greg Craig, you're still with us.
Last call for Craig's finale from Belmont Light.
All right, So at this point, I'll turn it over to David Zeke. David, are you still with us? I am,
DAVID ZEEK - READING CLIMATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - SB 2211 - HB 3327 - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am my name is David Zeek, I'm a resident of Reading and I'm also the chair of the Reading Climate Advisory Committee. The Climate Advisory Committee is an appointed chair appointed by the select board that works on environmental, economic and societal sustainability. We also worked with the Red Municipal Light Department on their programs for clean energy, energy efficiency and electrification. Karen Herrick has already mentioned that Reading has been working on uh designation as a green community for almost two years. And that green community designation is also a cornerstone of our sustainability efforts that the climate Advisory Committee promotes.
So we support and ask the TUE to endorse House Bill 3327 and Senate Bill 2211, an act relative to municipal light plant participation in green communities. We have been working on this as we've heard quite a bit already on the five different parts of the green communities solution that our town meeting last November passed changes to the bylaws for the stretch code for buildings. We have been throughout this process engaged with the residents in reading.6591 So there have been6593 numerous webinars and information sessions and even in all this through a year of covid restrictions and this summer,6604 the climate advisory committee and the town staff will host more community meetings to discuss plans for our energy reduction plan.
As has been mentioned, the barrier that we've encountered has been the renewable energy fee, how we accomplish that. We've discussed with the RMLD even applying this this fee to the Reading residents but were unable to do that without also applying that fee to the other towns in their service area. Since we're only one of the four towns, there are many advantages to being served by a light plant of our MLD size. They have the resources, the size and the staff to run a number of forward-looking programs but this fee has turned into a problem for6652 us. So Bill 3327 allows our MLDs Reading and all the towns served by MLPs better access to participate in the green communities.
It allows each town to pursue becoming a green community at its own pace. So with the adoption of this bill, Reading can become a model for its neighbours in embracing green communities. So we ask the TUE to endorse a favourable report of H 3327 and S 2211. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony, turned it over to the committee to see if there are any questions. Just one Mr Chairman Jo
um thank you. Thank you very much. Mr Zeke.
[BARRETT:] I'm struggling to understand that the situation here, which is an interesting one. You're saying that Reading is willing, I should say, to pay the fee as a condition of becoming a green community but there's controversy in North Reading in Wilmington, perhaps in Lynnfield. Would6715 those three communities inevitably benefit from grants secured by the Reading Municipal Light Department or were we to pass this legislation and we're Reading alone to pay the fee? In other words, you've got just a portion of your service area paying the fee. It seems as if the resulting cash grants, though perhaps even as a legal matter might have to be, benefits might have to be extended to all four towns. Is that part6747 of the legal problem here that some would benefit who hadn't paid?
[ZEEK:] That's not my understanding. So, my understanding is that it would be Reading, getting the designation and Reading receiving any grant money and therefore Reading is on the hook for the fee. It's not that the other towns object, it's just that they're not alone, they're not currently pursuing green communities and I believe it's RMLDs inability to have these differentiated rates. Now, if they do that, you know, if there could be a separate feed just for being a resident of Reading as opposed to a customer of our MLD, that might be a solution. Obviously, it's also a solution if the whole service area qualifies because of the exceptions, so either one but our main issue is we are on this path and we have been on this path but we don't have a clear path and we and we really do need that for Reading to become a green community.
[BARRETT:] I want to thank you. So I infer from earlier testimony from Reading lights that you folks are open to a tweaking of this bill in order to align costs and benefits appropriately.
[ZEEK:] Yes, I think we, need a path to the green community and if tweaking is necessary, so be it. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
thank you, sir.
Thank you so much. I do not see any other hands up for questions and so I thank you for your testimony and at this time we'll move on to Karen Arpino. Karen, are you still with us?
Karen Arpino.
Okay. At6837 this time then we will move on to Margaret. Downey Margaret, are you still with us? Yes, I am a great alright we can hear you just fine. Thank you. Thank you. Uh No afternoon.
MARGARET DOWNEY - CAPE LIGHT COMPACT - HB 3360 - Good afternoon, Chairman Roy, Chairman Barrett. My name is Maggie Downey and I'm the administrator of the Cape Light compact. I'm the one most of the other two speakers were referencing earlier on. I am here to testify in support of house bill 3360. I sat before this very committee in January of 2020 to read the compact written comments in support of House Bill 4261 which was the same legislation refile this House bill 3360. So I would like to thank our Representative Sarah Peak for refiling the legislation and for her longtime support of the compact. My remarks today and then I'll be happy to digress and answer questions reflect my experiences as the administrator of the Cape Light Compact and also in support of House Bill I've been the Cape Light compact Administrator since its inception and creation in 1997.
So I've got some history with the actual restructuring Massachusetts restructuring act, the original Green Communities Act, etc and a lot of grey hair to go along with all that. So over6957 the past 17 months, as you all know, much has changed here in Massachusetts in the energy space. I now have an act creating the next generation roadmap for Massachusetts, climate policy and an interim Clean Energy6968 and climate plan for 2030. Combined, these two developments have created a roadmap for addressing the climate crisis here in Massachusetts. I thank all of you who have worked6981 hard to pass this new climate law and issue the climate-energy plan that's both elected officials and hardworking volunteers put their heart and soul into these documents and it's now time to let the local cities and towns step up and pursue the goals and objectives contained in these two documents through a myriad of legislation that's been under consideration by you.
The Cape and the Vineyard 21 towns have been administering the Mass save program locally for 20 years. This is our 20th anniversary and we're ready7013 to do just that. Andrew spoke to this earlier but to be specific, the compact has proposed an offer called the Cape and vineyard electrification offering, which was to serve low and moderate-income customers into pair move them off of fossil fuels and get rid of oil, propane electric heat, put them on clothes climate, heat pumps, pair those with solar and batteries for resilience7037 and participation in the demand response programs, all designed to target a population that has been left behind to help them reduce their carbon footprint and manage their overall energy usage.
This offering was an enhancement to the7052 statewide energy efficiency program, which municipal aggregators are expressly authorized to do under 164, Section 134B. However, the compact has been facing barriers to innovating and implementing enhancements like CVO and our energy efficiency plan. This has been because there has been a slow and steady disregard for the express authority granted to municipalities by the Mass Legislature 164 Section7077 134B to develop and offer energy efficiency plans that go beyond and are more comprehensive or which cover additional subject matters on the statewide utility statewide plan and or the utility plans and the intent of the legislation.
House Bill 3360 is to affirm a municipal aggregator's ability to develop an energy efficiency plan that includes all programs and core initiatives of the statewide plan but allows us to offer special offerings such as CVO and or greater incentives that reflect our unique needs in our community. Senator Barrett's comments underscore actually the importance of HB 3360 in7114 helping the compact achieve Massachusetts climate goals. You asked for an example so I pulled it out, this is the DPU order for the existing three-year plan and it is expressly written by the department where they had a total disregard for the municipal aggregation statute.
They looked at the Green Communities Act, but they ignored the municipal aggregation statute and they did not harmonize and balance those two, which is what 3360 is intended to do, to give us that ability to do exactly what I've heard you, everybody here to talk about; to pursue and implement the directives in the recent legislation passed and the draft climate plan. Thank you. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony. And I'd ask if there are any committee members who have questions briefly. Mr. Chairman. Thank7171 you. Yes.
BARRETT - Well, I want to thank you Madam Chair for helping to illuminate this interesting area. I would hope to the committee, to both the House and the Senate members, you would tell us more about the exact legal situation that you're describing here, where it seems as if the DPUs approval of the compact three-year plan may not have taken note of all the latitude legislatures given the compact under law. Please give us as much careful elucidation as7208 you can about this particular issue so that we can consider it as a committee and I want to thank you and all your colleagues for having raised this legal issue for the committee. It certainly is one that I haven't focused on myself and I find you're having done so very helpful. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you. I will do that. I believe you're asking for me to follow up in writing that right now, correct? That's correct. Yes, I will do that. Thank. Thank you very much. Thank you so7245 much. I appreciate it. I do not see any other hands up for questions, but I thank you for your testimony today and I look forward to receiving the supplemental information in writing. Uh at this time I turned it7259 over to Ben Hellerstein. Ben, are you still with us? I am uh
BEN HELLERSTEIN - STATE DIRECTOR ENVIRONMENT MASS - HB 3301 - SB 2153 - Thank you so much for the opportunity to offer our testimony today. It's a busy day in the Legislature actually,7267 chair Barrett will be happy to know that I was just in the Public Health Committee offering testimony on his polystyrene bill, so happy to be jumping back over here, back into the energy world. So I'm just introducing myself, my name is Ben Hellerstein and I'm the state director for environment Massachusetts. We are statewide citizens supported by environmental advocacy organizations working to protect clean air, clean water and open space. I'm testifying today in support of the bills related to community empowerment; H 3301 and S 2153 and we strongly support7317 both of these bills.
As we know, our use of fossil fuels is polluting our air and water, harming our health and changing our climate in dangerous ways. In order to ensure a safe and healthy future for us and our children, we must transition to 100% clean and renewable sources of energy as quickly as possible. All across Massachusetts, cities and towns are leading the way to a future powered entirely by renewable energy. Last summer, we released the third edition of our renewable Communities report, which highlights innovative municipal efforts for renewable electricity,7350 energy efficiency, clean transportation and clean heating.
Over the years, we profiled dozens of communities in our report of all shapes and sizes ranging from Pittsfield to Nantucket, New Bedford to Concord. We're excited about community empowerment because we believe it will be one more tool in the toolbox for communities to accelerate their progress toward 100% renewable energy. The establishment of a community empowerment program can help municipalities promote the development of additional renewable energy generating resources, particularly if those municipalities choose to purchase and retire the wrecks from those projects. We are in favour of this program being made available statewide, but if the committee does choose to begin with one region of the state, we think that starting with the Cape and Islands is a great place to begin, as is proposed in Rep Fernandez Bill. I think, you know, today, the committee has heard from many of the activists and organizations and institutions in that part of the state that are really pushing forward this transition.
There is a robust infrastructure in place uh in southeastern Massachusetts to take advantage of this opportunity, um and there is a strong interest as well as is demonstrated by five of the six towns on Martha's vineyard already committing to 100% renewable energy. So in conclusion, I urge you to report favourably on these bills to create a community empowerment program Um to give municipalities7429 one more tool to help build a 100% renewable future. So, thank you for your consideration. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Thank you very much for your testimony. And at this time I'll ask if there are any questions for many members of the committee.
BARRETT - Just a brief comment, Mr. Chairman which is that I want to compliment Mr. Hellerstein on behalf of members of the committee and members of the Legislature and his organization for their terrific work on the Climate Act over the last two years and I don't know this bill well,7463 the community empowerment concept, I don't know well, but I look forward to getting to know it better. SHOW NON-ESSENTIAL DIALOGUE
Right? Thank you. Senator. Thank you so much. I do not see any other questions from the committee. And then I7477 want to thank you for your testimony and also for7482 taking some time to help me navigate along the beginning of the work on this committee and look forward to working with you moving forward. Thanks so much. Thank you. And7493 at this time I would call on Terrence Hingston. Terrence. Are you still with us?
Last call for Terrence Haston.
Okay. And at this point it shows the Terrence is with us on the call, but uh, let me he was listed as the last witness to register to testify at this time. And I would ask if there are any other witnesses who either showed up7542 after we call7543 their name, who would like to7545 testify on any of7547 the bills before the committee today. Any other people please either use to raise your hand function or a mute your microphone and let us know if you'd like to testify on any bill today.
Well, seeing no further witnesses wishing to testify, I will call this uh, this hearing to a close and I want to thank everyone for taking the time to join us and particularly all of the committee members who stuck with us for the testimony and all of the witnesses who offered some a great and helpful testimony today. Thank you very much. And we look forward to reviewing each of these bills and taking action on them. And thank you to my co chair, Senator Barrett, always7596 a joy to join you and thank you for your comments and questions today. Very helpful. Thank you. Thank7604 you. Mr. Chairman, thank you members of the committee. Thank you witnesses. Thank you
© InstaTrac 2025