Massachusetts State Senator
“The State Senate has passed a major voting reform bill to expand voting access, making permanent COVID era initiatives like mail-in ballots and expanded early voting.
“’At a time when states like Texas and Georgia are making it tougher to vote, Massachusetts is going the other way and expanding access,” said local Senator Mike Barrett. “This is deeply satisfying news. I’m proud of the Massachusetts State Senate.’”
Sen. Michael Barrett says that “from a legislative view, there is no one focused on responsibility” for the role Mass Save plays in electrification.
“Under the environmental justice policy in the new biomass regulations, which are set to take effect this week, future biomass facilities could be located and be eligible for incentives in just 10 to 11 percent of the state — a stretch of communities west of the Connecticut River and along the Connecticut border, a strip of coastline that runs through Cohasset, Scituate and Marshfield, and small shreds of various other towns.
“Sen. Mike Barrett, the co-chair of the TUE Committee, said the bills Livingstone and the Springfield lawmakers supported seemed like it ‘simply makes formal what the Baker people already conceded informally, which is that there is not to be any additional biomass built in Massachusetts.’
“’If we’re going to create a map by administration regulation that bars biomass for 89 percent of the state, I think this is a de facto admission that biomass should no longer be part of a clean energy portfolio for Massachusetts,’ Barrett said. He added, ‘All we’re being asked to do is to formalize something that has already become an informal rule. And in so formalizing this new policy against biomass, we would be protecting a handful of remaining towns that don’t qualify for environmental justice protection.’”
Sen. Michael Barrett questioned why the administration had chosen not to fund certain climate projects, such as a modernization of the electric grid that will be necessary as the state transitions to more electric heating of homes and businesses.
“I don’t sense a consistent theme of trying to get a two for one hit, or trying to make sure mitigation, averting future climate problems, is always part of an adaptation policy,” Barrett said.
“You can’t have utilities in charge of an all-out push to electrify,” said Senator Mike Barrett, a Lexington Democrat who was the lead author of the state’s 2050 climate law. “Mass Save is probably not going to be the quarterback to bring us to the emissions reductions Super Bowl as it’s currently constituted.”
Sen. Michael Barrett, who co-chairs the committee, told Woodcock that it sounded to him like DOER was taking a position that “is somewhat supportive of current biomass, but distinctly unenthusiastic and bearish about additional biomass.”
“Why don’t we formalize what seems to be the informal and unofficial thrust of these proposed new regulations? Why leave 35 out of 351 municipalities in the crosshairs?” Barrett asked, referring to a request O’Connor included in his letter that Woodcock support legislation that would make all new in-state biomass ineligible for state incentives.
Lawmakers called on the Baker administration to restrict woody plants altogether, saying those 35 towns could be “targeted” for incentivized biomass production.
Electric customers in Massachusetts who switched to a competitive electric supplier paid $426 million more than they would have had they stayed with their utility company from July 2015 to June 2020, Attorney General Maura Healey’s office said in a recent report.
Sen. Mike Barrett, the committee co-chair, said that the findings presented by the attorney general and executive branch “really raise serious questions for those who would argue that we continue with current practice.”
“As time has gone on, both sides have had an opportunity to be heard and it’s probably time — just expressing a personal opinion — that we act on this question,” Barrett said.
Sen. Michael Barrett, the committee co-chair, said that the findings presented by the attorney general and executive branch “really raise serious questions for those who would argue that we continue with current practice.”
“This is not the first session in which she’s raised these issues. As time has gone on, both sides have had an opportunity to be heard and it’s probably time — just expressing a personal opinion — that we act on this question since all sides have been given an opportunity in the past sessions to make their points and to offer their perspectives,” Barrett said.
Sen. Michael Barrett brought up the recent dispute between the administration and Legislature over who should have final say over how ARPA funding gets spent, a back-and-forth that was ultimately settled in the Legislature’s favor.
Theoharides said she had no issue with the Legislature wanting to play a role in how the funding gets spent or objection to lawmakers exercising their authority to appropriate the stimulus funding.