Press Releases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Well, look at you!

Until now, people concerned about climate, along with their elected representatives, have concentrated on cleaning up buildings, cars and trucks, and the electric power supply. We’ve had to set priorities.

But, thanks to the Massachusetts Port Authority, we’ve pivoted.  Not by choice, and not that we saw it coming, but we’re learning we’ve got to focus on aviation and its devastating implications for climate change. 

In seriously entertaining a proposal to build multiple new hangars for super-polluting private jets at Hanscom Airfield, MassPort is on the verge of a terrible two-fer: aiding and abetting the warming of the planet, and pandering to the concentration of private wealth.  You can’t do much worse than that. 

And this, I am embarrassed and frustrated to say, from a Massachusetts governmental body.

Given the scariness of the times for the state, the nation — and the world — MassPort’s timing could not be worse.  Two weeks ago, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration updated its list of U.S. climate disasters in 2023, defined as events estimated to have caused at least $1 billion of damage. 

Averaged across the years 1980-2022, the average number of American climate disasters is 8.  For the five most recent years, 2018-2022, the average number pops up to 18.  Whereas in 2023, which still has three months to run, the count of $1 billion dollar climate disasters has climbed to 23.  From an average of 8 over the past 40 years — to 18 over the past five years — to 23 — so far — in the single year 2023.  Something’s gone haywire. 

Sometimes, you can make the case that you deserve a pass.  Maybe you need to tend to a local emergency, and shelve, at least for a little while, your larger obligation to the planet. 

But no such rationalizations apply here.  We’re not talking about a construction project that’s needed to respond to a natural disaster.  Or needed to deal with a pandemic.  Or to repair aging infrastructure — we’re not talking about the T. 

This is just about money.  MassPort has plenty of it, and wants more.

The organization’s Board of Directors is the Big Decider here.  So we direct a plea to them: It’s not too late to do the right thing. 

Otherwise, you put MassPort at risk of becoming a pariah, a poster child for reckless disregard of the public interest by a governmental body.  If 27 — or 18 — or just a dozen — of these hangars get built, the agency will never come back from the reputational damage.  Going ahead would be an unforced error, one of the biggest ones in modern Massachusetts public policy.

None of us should want this.  All of us have a stake in seeing the Board of Directors pull back from the brink.  The agency plays a key role in economic development in Massachusetts.  When we fret about the decline of faith in public institutions, and we worry about shoring it up, we’re thinking of you, MassPort.

Let me reference some not-so-ancient history.  In the 1940s and ’50s and ’60s, there was a power-hungry government transportation czar in New York by the name of Robert Moses.  This guy was all about getting it done, and to do that, he trampled on the wishes of the locals and pursued massive construction plans, no matter what.

His example led to the rise of Mini-Me transportation czars here in Massachusetts.  One result was a major highway project called the Inner Belt, which would have carved a mini-Rt.128 through neighborhoods in Brookline, Boston, Cambridge, and Somerville.   This was an era in which highways still seemed synonymous with economic progress. 

Stopping the Inner Belt was hopeless — until it wasn’t.  Grassroots pressure grew.  And then, despite pressure from Washington and the federal grant assurances of the day, a governor named Frank Sargent found a way to pull the plug.  In 1970, he declared a moratorium on highway construction inside Rt. 128, and, in 1971, he officially canceled the Inner Belt.

To the MassPort Board of Directors, we say, you don’t have to do this.  Stifle your inner czar — save your organization in the process — and do right by Massachusetts.

Just say no.

Thank you.

END

For Immediate Release

In a letter released today, two leaders on climate policy in the Massachusetts State Senate took sharp exception to particulars of a draft of a new net zero stretch energy code proposed by the Baker Administration.  The Legislature ordered the Administration to write the new code to drive down greenhouse gas pollution in the building sector, second only to transportation as a generator of emissions in Massachusetts.

The Legislature’s Climate Act directs the Executive branch to promulgate a “municipal opt-in specialized stretch energy code” for newly constructed buildings that includes “net-zero building performance standards and a definition of net-zero building.”

In their letter to Pat Woodcock, head of the state Department of Energy Resources, Senators Mike Barrett and Cindy Creem wrote, “If implemented well, the new specialized stretch code will be a game changer — a leap forward for climate policy in Massachusetts. That’s why we’re so disappointed that the Baker Administration’s straw proposal comes up short.”

The Legislature ordered DOER to hold five hearings around the state in order to give exposure to the concept of net zero construction, the defining feature of the Act’s new stretch code provision.  “By crowding all five hearings into a single seven-day period, beginning tomorrow and including this Friday evening,” Barrett and Creem wrote, “the Baker Administration is depriving the public of a full opportunity to participate.”

Barrett and Creem are also unhappy that the straw proposal would bar a city or town from mandating all-electric new construction, even after local officials allowed for vigorous analysis and debate.  “For municipalities in Massachusetts and other progressive states, all-electric construction is the favored strategy for decarbonizing new buildings.  Barring communities from employing it would be a significant setback.”

The senators wrote Woodcock, “We ask you to put into writing, early enough in the process to allow for public review, the legislatively mandated meaning of ‘net-zero building’ and key features of the legislatively mandated ‘net-zero building performance standards.'”

According to Barrett and Creem, the Baker draft would result in new buildings adding to the state’s problem with greenhouse gas emissions, “a dismaying prospect, and all the more so in light of the Administration’s emphasis on the difficulty of reducing emissions in the building sector.”

“We agree with the letter sent to you recently by Massachusetts municipal officials,” the two senators wrote.  “Both the statute and the urgent need to combat climate change call for a true net-zero stretch code.  This means the new code must, at the very least, provide interested municipalities with clear authority to prohibit on-site combustion in new construction and in major rehabilitation.”

“What the Legislature is mandating will be optional for cities and towns.  No community will have to move forward.  The municipalities that opt in will have chosen, after hearing from their citizens, to serve as climate laboratories for the Commonwealth.  Please let them serve — ideally, with your agency supplying a framework.”

Barrett and Creem concluded, “We look forward to seeing substantial revisions to the net-zero stretch energy code promulgated by your agency.”

The schedule of the five hearings is as follows:

 

Western Region	March 2, 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Metro Boston and Northeastern Region	March 3, 9:00 am – 11:00 am
Environmental Justice Communities	March 4, 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Central Region	March 7, 3:00 pm – 5:00 pm
Southeastern Region	March 8, 3:00 pm – 5:00 pm

At the Thursday morning (March 3) hearing for Metro Boston and the northeastern suburbs, Barrett will testify, along with representatives of five towns that are seeking legislative authority to go further than the DOER draft would otherwise allow.  

For Immediate Release

The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy (TUE) holds a hearing tomorrow, at 10 a.m., on S.1333 and H.2167, companion bills to allow cities and towns to require that new residential and commercial buildings built within their boundaries be “all-electric.”

The bills’ definition of an all-electric building says it must involve “no natural gas, heating oil or propane plumbing or equipment.”

S.1333 and H.2167 were heard originally by a separate legislative body, the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government, which earlier this month discharged the bills to TUE without recommending either approval or rejection.

“To reach our climate goals, we need to begin constructing buildings that do not rely on fossil fuels for heating,” Senator Mike Barrett and Representative Jeff Roy, TUE Co-Chairs, said in a brief statement.  “To this end, the 2021 Climate Act obligates the Baker Administration to promulgate a new ‘municipal opt-in stretch energy code’ that includes a set of ‘net-zero building performance standards.'”

“EEA told the public to expect a draft of the code by last fall.  But something’s happened.  It’s not seen the light of day, and we hear some developers want it weakened.  On the off chance the stretch energy code either does not emerge soon or emerges but departs from legislative intent, we’re looking at contingency steps the Legislature may want to take.  Tomorrow’s hearing is sure to touch on these issues.”

In addition to S.1333 and H.2267, which would mandate an all-electric municipal opt-in process statewide, TUE will hear testimony on five home rule bills — submitted by Acton, Arlington, Brookline, Concord, and Lexington — that seek to do the same for their respective jurisdictions.  Several other late-filed and referred bills will be heard, as well.

Below is the link to the hearing notice and to where a recording of the hearing will be posted afterwards.

https://malegislature.gov/Events/Hearings/Detail/4169

END

For Immediate Release

Senator Mike Barrett, Senate Co-Chair of the Legislature’s Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, is asking Governor Charlie Baker to drop his Administration’s push to lift price caps on offshore wind deals.

“The cap protects everyone in Massachusetts who pays a monthly electric bill,” Barrett writes. A Baker bill that abolishes the cap, among other things, is set to be heard tomorrow by the Committee.

“I strongly support clean energy in general and offshore wind in particular,” Barrett writes. “I take exception, however, to your proposal to abolish the cap. … I think you were right the first time, in 2016, when you supported legislative language imposing just such a cap, and the
second time, in 2019, when you suggested lifting the cap for just a single round and reimposing it for later rounds.”

Barrett, a legislative leader on climate issues, is concerned that “ratepayers could be confronted with unnecessarily steep electricity bills, associate them with climate policy, and rebel against
both.”

“To respond to global warming,” he says, “we need to go all-electric with respect to both our cars and our heating systems. Which means we need to boost our overall consumption of electricity, in the teeth of the region’s high per-unit costs. It’s a sensitive time to be asking legislators to drop a legal safeguard for their constituents.”

“Thanks to last month’s announcement on third-round contracting,” Barrett adds, “we now know the cap has prevented neither the developers nor our coastal cities from coming out of contract negotiations as winners. Importantly, the cap ensures that families throughout the state win,
too.”

As for the job implications, he writes, “Though it’s extremely early in the industry’s build-out in Massachusetts — preparations for the first project, Vineyard Wind I, have only just begun — it’s possible to take a preliminary tally of associated economic development activity,” Barrett writes.
“Judging from the positive reactions from all around Massachusetts, including your office, it’s hard to argue that the price cap has stifled job creation.”

Barrett’s letter also lists the wholesale electricity prices set in the Massachusetts deals shaped by the cap and compares them to the prices set in comparable deals struck in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, none of which featured price caps.

“The numbers make the Massachusetts approach look very good,” Barrett concludes.

 ###

For Immediate Release

Senator Mike Barrett, Senate Co-Chair of the Legislature’s Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, is asking Governor Charlie Baker to drop his Administration’s push to lift price caps on offshore wind deals.

“The cap protects everyone in Massachusetts who pays a monthly electric bill,” Barrett writes.

A Baker bill that abolishes the cap, among other things, is set to be heard tomorrow by the Committee.

“I strongly support clean energy in general and offshore wind in particular,” Barrett writes.  “I take exception, however, to your proposal to abolish the cap. … I think you were right the first time, in 2016, when you supported legislative language imposing just such a cap, and the second time, in 2019, when you suggested lifting the cap for just a single round and reimposing it for later rounds.”

Barrett, a legislative leader on climate issues, is concerned that “ratepayers could be confronted with unnecessarily steep electricity bills, associate them with climate policy, and rebel against both.”

“To respond to global warming,” he says, “we need to go all-electric with respect to both our cars and our heating systems.  Which means we need to boost our overall consumption of electricity, in the teeth of the region’s high per-unit costs.  It’s a sensitive time to be asking  legislators to drop a legal safeguard for their constituents.”

“Thanks to last month’s announcement on third-round contracting,” Barrett adds, “we now know the cap has prevented neither the developers nor our coastal cities from coming out of contract negotiations as winners.  Importantly, the cap ensures that families throughout the state win, too.”

As for the job implications, he writes, “Though it’s extremely early in the industry’s build-out in Massachusetts — preparations for the first project, Vineyard Wind I, have only just begun — it’s possible to take a preliminary tally of associated economic development activity,” Barrett writes.  “Judging from the positive reactions from all around Massachusetts, including your office, it’s hard to argue that the price cap has stifled job creation.”

Barrett’s letter also lists the wholesale electricity prices set in the Massachusetts deals shaped by the cap and compares them to the prices set in comparable deals struck in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, none of which featured price caps.

“The numbers make the Massachusetts approach look very good,” Barrett concludes.

END

For Immediate Release

State Senator Mike Barrett, Senate Chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy of the Massachusetts Legislature, will attend COP26, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland.  The Conference is a once-a-year gathering of representatives from every part of the world and the pre-eminent forum for coordinating joint action against global warming.

“Here in the U.S., with all the hiccups happening in the Capital around climate strategy, a lot of responsibility is shifting back to state-level government,” Barrett says.  “Several years back, in 2015, the summit in Paris was about the role of nations.  This year, the summit in Glasgow is about all hands on deck — nations, for sure, but also states, provinces, cities, businesses, and citizen activists.”

State-level actors have been included in previous U.N. Climate Conferences, Barrett says — he took part himself in the 2017 meeting in Bonn — but such “subnational” efforts have been in and out of focus.  This year, due in part to the scaling down of climate policy making in Washington, interest in state-level initiatives is high.

The Conference runs two weeks, from Sunday, Oct. 31, through Friday, Nov. 12.  Barrett is attending the Conference’s full second week.  He says he’s looking forward to joining the day of meetings set aside to discuss climate options for cities, states, provinces, and regions.  Other Week Two sessions will address policies on (1) transportation; (2) the built environment; (3) science and innovation; (4) women’s rights and gender equality; and (5) adaptation.

Back in Massachusetts, Barrett is also the author of a bill to establish the “Massachusetts Fund for Vulnerable Countries Most Affected by Climate Change.”  The idea is to create a new “checkoff” option on state income tax forms, one that would allow, but not require, taxpayers to donate money, over and above taxes owed, to a special account set up to aid those nations of the world that are especially vulnerable to severe drought, rising ocean levels, desertification, and the other most devastating effects of global warming.

A special Week Two session will be devoted to questions of assistance to these nations, and this is where Barrett hopes to discuss his proposal.

END

For Immediate Release

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.”

When it comes to early voting, the bill requires two weeks (including two weekends) of in-person early voting for biennial state elections and municipal elections held on the same day.  It would allow municipalities to opt in to early voting in person for any municipal election not held concurrently with another election.

For vote-by-mail, the bill requires the Secretary of the Commonwealth to send out mail-in ballot applications to all registered voters in July of every even-numbered year.

Barrett says he’s pleased that the Senate included a same-day registration provision, which allows individuals to register to vote during early voting periods or on the day of a primary or general election.  Twenty other states, Barrett says, already use same-day registration.

Importantly, given the range of new measures, the bill instructs the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive public awareness campaign to highlight the new voting and registration options.

The bill expands access to voting in other ways as well.

Currently, people held in correctional facilities on misdemeanor convictions or as they await trial are eligible to vote.  The Senate bill ensures that individuals who are incarcerated, who are currently eligible to vote, are provided with voting information and can exercise their right to vote in state primaries and general elections.  An amendment adopted during debate ensures that people who are incarcerated are notified of their right to vote upon release and given the opportunity to fill out a voter registration form.

The Senate unanimously approved a provision to streamline ballot access for U.S. service members overseas by allowing them to cast their vote electronically.

For local officials, the bill provides flexibility to accommodate the increased election logistics of each town in the state.  For example, Barrett says, the bill allows election officials to pre-process mail-in and early voting ballots in advance of election day.

The VOTES Act now advances on to the Massachusetts House of Representatives for further consideration.

###