This blog post leans heavily on the work of Jess Nahigian of the Sierra Club and Miriam Wasser of WBUR. Click their links for their excellent analyses of what’s in the climate bill. Our post looks at what this bill means for our movement – where we won, where we fell short, and where we go from here.

First, Some Context

The 2023-2024 legislative session has been a wild ride. Our previous blog posts looked at the Senate bill, the House bill, the Conference Committee, and some first reactions from around our movement to the Conference Committee consensus bill. To recap: After each chamber passed their version of the bill in July, State House leadership appointed a conference committee to reconcile the two bills. The committee failed to reach a compromise by the end of formal session, July 31st, and have continued working through the past few months on the issue.

Our movement put immense pressure on our elected officials throughout the process. We held rallies, lobby days, and even song sessions inside the State House to demand legislators do their jobs. These powerful actions took all of our 350 Mass members, our Mass Power Forward Coalition, and our friends at Gas Transition Allies to pull off. Our final rally, demanding that our leaders stop “Kicking the Can” on climate, had a direct effect. Just a few weeks later we got a compromise bill. While the bill has good parts and less good parts, it includes our two biggest end-of-session demands: a gas transition and a just siting process.

Before we dive in, we owe a huge thank you to the chairs of the conference committee: Senator Mike Barrett and Representative Jeff Roy. Thank you for your persistence through this process, and your communication and collaboration with our grassroots climate movement. Thank you as well to Senate President Spilka who fought hard for the gas transition language in the final bill.

Where Did We Win?

While there are lots of good things hidden in the 140 pages of the bill, there were three major issues there that our 350 Mass members fought for: a gas transition, a just siting process, and stopping private jet expansion at Hanscom. We also supported the MA AFL-CIO’s Climate Jobs Coalition as they won major labor language around prevailing wage law, fair labor standards, and apprenticeship programs on energy projects created by the bill.

A Gas Transition: 

Transitioning MA away from gas as the main heat source for our buildings has been a major priority of 350 Mass for a long time. This cycle, our efforts largely focused on the Gas Transition Allies’ Future of Clean Heat campaign.

The major change in the bill was expanding the legal definition of a “gas company” to include non-emitting sources of heat. This means that gas companies are no longer obligated by law to exclusively provide gas, and can offer alternatives like heat pumps and network geothermal systems. It also required the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to consider climate goals when approving gas system expansion. Finally, it updates the gas leak repair program (known as the Gas System Enhancement Program, or GSEP) to include repairing or retiring pipelines, rather than just extremely expensive replacements.

Justice in Siting and Permitting:

Siting and Permitting was the main thrust of the bill, wrestling with the question of how we rapidly build a massive new electrical grid that can handle the different needs of renewables while maintaining community input. 

Siting and Permitting was also the main object of concern for our allies at the Environmental Justice Table. Environmental Justice communities bear disproportionate burdens of polluting energy infrastructure, and there is a very real fear that the green energy future will be built on health costs paid by those same communities. Their answer, which we successfully got into the bill, was a Cumulative Impact Analysis.

A Cumulative Impact Analysis will require the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) to take into account the total pollution already present by a community before approving any electricity generating facility or oil, gas, or substation facility. It will spread the burden, ensuring that new energy infrastructure is not sited in communities already overburdened by negative public health impacts.

Limits on Private Jet Expansion:

The campaign to Stop Private Jet Expansion (SPJE) at Hanscom Airport and Anywhere fired up our members from the State House to Hanscom itself. The main legislative thrust of the campaign was successful. The Climate Bill will update the Massachusetts Port Authority charter to require them to account for greenhouse gas emissions, environmental justice, and environmental protection and resiliency. It’s a lot harder to massively expand private jet traffic in the state when you look at the climate costs!

As Miriam Wasser reported, “This provision is a response to that (SPJE campaign), though it's unclear how its passage might affect that specific project.” There is still more to do to stop the expansion, so stay tuned to the campaign!

Where Did We Fall Short?

While we were largely successful in our main end of session demands, there were some important pieces that did not make it.

• Air Quality: This effort was led by our Environmental Justice allies at Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE), fighting to improve indoor and outdoor air, especially for EJ populations and residents burdened by pollution from congested roadways and ports; Reduce mold in housing by increasing monitoring of hot spots, set air pollution reduction targets by 2030 and 2035; and require installation of air filters in existing eligible buildings and advanced filtration systems in new eligible buildings.
• Biomass: Remove woody biomass (burning woody plants like shrubs) from the alternative portfolio standard and stop it from being counted as “clean” in municipal light plants. The second part, included in the Senate bill but omitted from the final compromise, would close the "biomass loophole" for Municipal Light Plants (MLPs). Last session, the legislature removed biomass power plants from qualifying for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), but the RPS does not apply to municipal light plants. Incentives remain for developers to build and operate wood-burning power plants in the Commonwealth, or even to purchase biomass energy from other New England states, using ratepayer "clean energy" subsidies.
• Stopping Gas System Expansion: A halt on expanding large pipelines, like the planned one going through environmental justice communities in Springfield and Longmeadow.
• Cumulative Impact Analysis Tied to Approval: While the final definition for the Cumulative Impact Analysis was correct, the Analysis was not tied to approval of the project.

Additionally, there were some bad pieces included. These included propping up incentives for waste to energy programs (burning trash!) and anaerobic digestion. The consolidated permit laid out in the Siting plan angered some activists who see it as a loss of local control, especially around the provision that automatically approves projects if EFSB decisions are not issued in 15 months. Forest Protectors worry that these new rules will make it easier for developers to clear woodlands for utility scale solar energy facilities.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The Conference Committee’s Compromise Climate Bill has now passed through the Senate with a 38-2 vote and a lengthy alliteration. It’s now waiting on the House, where House Republicans led by Minority Leader Jones have stalled it by demanding a roll call vote. The eight representatives in the chamber at the time were far below the 81 required for a quorum.

While the House Minority leader is actively delaying a crucial vote, he's right to critique the way the House does business. We deserve to know how our Representatives vote on key bills, and our Representatives should show up to do their jobs and vote. House Republicans are the visible obstacle, but House Democrats allowed us to get to this point by not wielding their vast supermajority to pass the bill.

The silver lining is that House Speaker Mariano is publicly committed to passing the bill and bringing it to Governor Healey’s desk. When it will come up is uncertain, as House leadership has said they will not bring it up until the Conference Committee on Economic Development comes up with their bill. Their plan seems to be passing both bills in a special formal session. In the meantime, we’ve seen that our pressure works. 

It will likely take more pressure from our movement, but we will get this bill over the finish line and signed by the Governor. Once we do, we’ll keep pushing to make sure the Governor’s administration implements the law in a just, green way. 

All of this was possible because of our movement, all of us! We are powerful together, even in the face of immense and powerful opposition. Whether you sent an email, joined a lobby day meeting, or marched in a protest, each and every climate activist in MA had a hand in this win. 

We will keep organizing – there is so much more to win.