 |
Post Office Box 1147
▪
Marblehead, Massachusetts 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
“Every Tax is a Pay Cut ... A Tax Cut is a Pay Raise”
46 years as “The Voice of Massachusetts Taxpayers”
— and
their Institutional Memory — |
|
CLT UPDATE
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Persevere
or Surrender
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Massachusetts is home to great colleges,
amazing hospitals, high-tech success stories — and a dismal
business tax climate.
That includes the highest per capita public
debt burden in the nation, according to the national Tax
Foundation, [Full
Report], driven partly by six-figure state pensions, as
the Herald reported this week.
The result is the Bay State is ranked as
having the 36th most competitive state business tax climate
in the nation, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Tax
Foundation.
“The tax health of the state is not good,”
said Michael Lucci, vice president of state projects for the
nonprofit. “The state has a relatively high tax burden,
especially compared to New Hampshire.”
The foundation ranks the Granite State among
the Top 10 states for taxes on business, with Wyoming coming
in first followed by South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Montana
then New Hampshire....
Key indicators show tax bills in
Massachusetts are not as high as they were in the past, but
the state is still in the Top 10 in many categories per
capita, including:
• The second highest corporate tax
collections at $320. The national average is $139.
• The third highest for individual income tax collections at
$2,146. The national average is $1,083.
• The fifth highest for state and local tax collections at
$6,469. The U.S. average is $4,946.
“The Taxachusetts label is not completely
gone but it has improved. It is still a high tax state,”
Lucci added.
The Boston Herald
Monday, January 20, 2020
Massachusetts tax scorecard shows worrisome grades
Gov. Baker says credit rating not at risk, pensions on
schedule
Massachusetts has the highest per capita
public debt burden in the nation — and it’s a bill
millennials will be saddled with as state pensions continue
to climb, fiscal watchdogs say.
The latest pension report provided to the
Herald from the state comptroller’s office shows six-figure
payouts to retirees are not easing up. Two pensioners topped
$300,000 a year in 2019 and 11 others were paid $200,000 or
more, records show.
On top of that, more than 1,400 other
retired state workers were paid $100,000 or more last year,
according to the data, and another 1,100-plus took home
$90,000 or more. And all pension payouts are not subject to
state taxes.
The costly pensions will continue to be a
drag on the budget through 2037, experts warn....
“We’re talking about big increases and every
year and the cost is expected to go up almost 10% a year,”
said Heath Fahle, policy director for the Massachusetts
Taxpayers Foundation.
“Health care, local aid, public safety, MBTA
and road projects all get squeezed a little by these rapidly
growing pension payments,” said Fahle. “Credit rating
agencies are noticing.”
Fahle was the author of a report out earlier
this week saying Massachusetts could be facing an $880
million budget gap next year due to slowing tax revenue and
bills due — including pensions.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 17, 2020
Massachusetts state pension, debt liability ‘at crisis
level’
#10. Massachusetts
The pension program in Massachusetts is just
59.9% funded and is $35.7 billion in debt.
To fill its pension gap, the state would
need to collect $5,202 from each resident — including adults
and children. That would provide enough funding to pay out
all of the retirement benefits promised to state and local
government employees in Massachusetts.
In this state, led by Republican Gov.
Charlie Baker, there are currently an estimated 278,000
public employees providing a wide range of services.
MoneyWise
The States Where Taxpayers Should Worry Most About Pensions
October 24, 2019
With the $44.6 billion fiscal
2021 budget his administration unveiled Wednesday, Gov.
Charlie Baker said Massachusetts would be able to fully fund
both the letter and spirit of the new education funding law,
make sizeable investments in public transit and workforce
training, and still stash more money away for an eventual
economic downturn....
Baker's budget was built on
the consensus agreement of his administration and lawmakers
that the state will collect an estimated $31.15 billion in
tax revenue during fiscal 2021 -- 2.8 percent growth, modest
compared to recent years of higher-than-expected collections
that resulted in large surpluses.
The governor's budget would
increase overall state spending by 2.3 percent above the
current fiscal year, according to the administration, and
accounts for a $96 million reduction in tax revenue
associated with the income tax rate having dropped to 5
percent, a reduction of $95 million because of the state's
new restrictions on the sales of vaping products, and
another $64 million reduction from the scheduled
re-emergence of a charitable giving tax deduction.
State House News Service
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Baker Budget Pushes Spending Up to $44.6 Bil
Larger Increases for Education, Transportation, Pensions
Energy and Environmental
Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides plans to issue a
letter of determination in the coming weeks to formally
establish a policy of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by
2050, she told the News Service Thursday.
Gov. Charlie Baker announced
his support for the 2050 target during his State of the
Commonwealth address Tuesday night. The 2008 Global Warming
Solutions Act requires a 2050 target of at least an 80
percent reduction in emissions, compared to 1990 levels, but
the 2050 target has never been formally set, the secretary
said.
A plan the administration
will release later this year will feature tactical steps the
administration plans to take to reach the goal, and
Theorharides said the state needs to not only reduce
emissions from transportation and buildings, but also focus
on land conservation, agricultural and wetlands protection
measures to facilitate carbon storage. Generally speaking,
the goal will be to pursue the most cost effective
approaches that reduce the most carbon, she said.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Theoharides Letter Will Formalize Net-Zero 2050 Target
Gov. Charlie Baker doubled
down on his support for the controversial Transportation
Climate Initiative and took it a step further in his State
of the State address Tuesday, vowing to make Massachusetts
net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the next 30 years.
“We must continue to take
bold action to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions,” Baker
said in his speech. “I get that this is going to be hard,
but together we have a real opportunity and a responsibility
to achieve a significant reduction in transportation
emissions.”
Baker’s allegiance to the
initiative, which would implement a gas fee to reduce carbon
emissions, continues as neighboring New England states have
cast doubt on whether they will participate. The regional
uncertainty has been a cause for concern for House Speaker
Robert DeLeo.
“Tonight, I’m committing the
Commonwealth to achieving an ambitious climate goal:
net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,” Baker said.
“That is why we’re working with our colleagues across the
Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states on a Regional
Transportation and Climate Initiative.”
During Baker’s speech,
MassFiscal Alliance announced on Twitter they will be
releasing details of a new statewide poll they conducted on
the TCI Wednesday.
“No matter what was said
tonight, the benefits to TCI do not outweigh the costs,”
MassFiscal Alliance Spokesman Paul Craney said. “Almost all
of the New England states have raised concerns with the
regressive nature of the program and tonight’s speech will
not change that. Massachusetts voters care deeply about
keeping costs low and TCI will only dramatically increase
the cost of living and doing business in Massachusetts.”
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Baker doubles down on TCI, vows net-zero emissions by 2050
During his State of the
Commonwealth address on Tuesday night, Massachusetts
Governor Charlie Baker set a lofty goal for net-zero carbon
emissions in 30 years without a plan to do it. Reactions are
mixed.
Baker’s pledge is more
ambitious than the one then-Governor Deval Patrick made in
2008. Patrick called for an 80 percent reduction by 2050, a
goal set forth in the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2008.
During his speech, Baker did
not lay out a specific plan to meet this goal and the
governor’s press office did not respond to a request for
comment via email on Wednesday or Thursday when asked what
Baker wants to do to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Baker on Tuesday emphasized a
proposed state government fee on fuel providers that could
increase the cost of gasoline to drivers by up to 17 cents a
gallon. Known as the Transportation and Climate Initiative,
it’s supposed to be a regional approach from Maine to
Virginia, though several states have been bailing on the
idea since cost estimates came out in December....
Some Democratic state
legislators are filling in the blanks of what
anti-climate-change legislation could look like.
As of Thursday afternoon,
four bills had been filed in the Massachusetts Legislature
with the intent of lowering Massachusetts’s carbon
emissions.
One measure would set
energy-efficient standards for certain new household and
commercial appliances. (It’s called An Act Relative to
Energy Savings Efficiency (Massachusetts Senate Bill 2478).)
...
One bill would whack
medium-size and major employers with an excise tax based on
the number of people they employ, apparently on the theory
that employers cause traffic by requiring that employees go
to a workplace. The head tax would be $100 per employee for
companies with 100 to 499 employees, $225 per employee on
companies with 500 to 999 employees, and $350 per employee
for ones employing over 1,000 people. (It’s called An Act
for Providing A Transportation Excise Tax (HD.4821).)
The New Boston Post
Friday, January 24, 2020
Climate-Change Activists Like Baker’s Net-Zero Emissions
Goal,
But Skeptics Are Counting the Cost
During his State of the
Commonwealth address on Tuesday night, Massachusetts
Governor Charlie Baker set a lofty goal for net-zero carbon
emissions in 30 years without a plan to do it. Reactions are
mixed.
Baker’s pledge is more
ambitious than the one then-Governor Deval Patrick made in
2008. Patrick called for an 80 percent reduction by 2050, a
goal set forth in the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2008.
During his speech, Baker did
not lay out a specific plan to meet this goal and the
governor’s press office did not respond to a request for
comment via email on Wednesday or Thursday when asked what
Baker wants to do to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Baker on Tuesday emphasized a
proposed state government fee on fuel providers that could
increase the cost of gasoline to drivers by up to 17 cents a
gallon. Known as the Transportation and Climate Initiative,
it’s supposed to be a regional approach from Maine to
Virginia, though several states have been bailing on the
idea since cost estimates came out in December....
Some Democratic state
legislators are filling in the blanks of what
anti-climate-change legislation could look like.
As of Thursday afternoon,
four bills had been filed in the Massachusetts Legislature
with the intent of lowering Massachusetts’s carbon
emissions.
One measure would set
energy-efficient standards for certain new household and
commercial appliances. (It’s called An Act Relative to
Energy Savings Efficiency (Massachusetts Senate Bill 2478).)
...
One bill would whack
medium-size and major employers with an excise tax based on
the number of people they employ, apparently on the theory
that employers cause traffic by requiring that employees go
to a workplace. The head tax would be $100 per employee for
companies with 100 to 499 employees, $225 per employee on
companies with 500 to 999 employees, and $350 per employee
for ones employing over 1,000 people. (It’s called An Act
for Providing A Transportation Excise Tax (HD.4821).)
The New Boston Post
Friday, January 24, 2020
Climate-Change Activists Like Baker’s Net-Zero Emissions
Goal,
But Skeptics Are Counting the Cost
The House's top Democrat on
the Transportation Committee said Thursday he's ready to
move on Gov. Charlie Baker's $18 billion borrowing bill to
finance infrastructure improvements over the next five
years, one of the major pillars of the governor's agenda for
2020.
Rep. William Straus, the
House chair of the Joint Committee on Transportation, said
he reached out by text message over the holiday weekend to
his co-chair Sen. Joseph Boncore to suggest scheduling an
executive session in order for members of the committee to
vote to recommend a new version of Baker's bill.
The Mattapoisett Democrat
said has not received a response from Boncore, but hopes to
avoid having to seek an extension beyond the Feb. 5 deadline
for most committees to report on bills filed at the start of
the session.
"I made the request because I
think the House members are ready," Straus said....
While House Democrats have
been privately discussing ways to raise new revenue to fund
transportation improvements, Baker has been publicly touting
the $18 billion bond bill as largely sufficient to make
major investments over the next five years....
The Legislature over the
years has been generally receptive to advancing bond bills,
which authorize capital spending over multiple years, but
Democrats in the Legislature this year are also actively
pursuing a revenue bill that could boost recurring sources
of funding for transportation investments.
Straus declined to discuss
changes he will recommend to the governor's bill, but
suggested that the House will not seek to increase the total
amount of borrowing above $18 billion. There could, however,
be policy changes.
"It's unlikely that the same
bill that the governor filed is the one that the committee
would report. There would be things changed, deleted and
added," Straus said....
The committee, which is
controlled by Democrats, has 20 members, including seven
senators and 13 House members. Only four of those members
are Republicans....
The governor's bill also
proposed contract and procurement reforms to speed up
projects and recommended a new $100 million paving program
to help municipalities maintain state numbers, but locally
owned roads.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Rep: House Ready to Move on $18 Bil Transpo Bond
The Massachusetts Senate
plans to roll out a "comprehensive climate change bill" on
Thursday, officials announced Tuesday, and one senator told
reporters he expects the bill to feature a net-zero
emissions requirement by 2050.
Senate President Karen Spilka
and Sen. Mike Barrett, who co-chairs the Telecommunications,
Utilities and Energy Committee, announced in a 30-second
video posted to social media that they would unveil the
bill's contents on Thursday.
"The youth of the
Commonwealth have urged us in no uncertain terms to take
bold action to combat climate change right here in
Massachusetts," Spilka says in the video....
Sen. Marc Pacheco, who chairs
the Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change,
pushed his colleagues for months to address climate change
before securing agreement from Spilka last November to
produce legislation by Jan. 31.
Pacheco told reporters the
Senate Ways and Means Committee is forming the bill based on
other pieces of legislation. He said he expects the
comprehensive bill will revise the Global Warming Solutions
Act target of 80 percent emissions reduction by 2050 to a
net-zero emissions requirement by 2050.
"We know that the world
hasn't acted as quickly as we should be and we haven't acted
as quickly as we should be at the state level," Pacheco
said. "If we're going to do what (the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change) and other science tells us, we have
to have net zero by 2050."
The House in July approved a
$1.3 billion bond bill (H 3997) to fund climate resiliency
infrastructure. That bill remains pending before the Senate
Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets committee.
State House News Service
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
On Tap: Senate Plans Climate Bill Rollout Thursday
Pacheco Expects Net-Zero Emissions Requirement
The Massachusetts Senate next
week plans to take up a far-reaching package of climate
bills whose major components include an electric MBTA bus
fleet by 2040, carbon-pricing mechanisms for transportation,
homes and commercial buildings, and a series of five-year
greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements that ramp up
to net-zero emissions in 2050.
The three bills, teed up for
debate on Thursday, Jan. 30, with amendments due by Monday,
amount to what Senate President Karen Spilka called a
"comprehensive plan for the state" to respond to an
international issue: global climate change.
"This is a race against
time," Spilka told reporters. "Climate change is changing
not only Massachusetts and the United States, it is changing
the face of our planet, and our planet's survival is at
stake." ...
Targeting both MBTA buses and
individual car purchases is an approach with the goal of
"helping people regardless of income to make sure that the
air gets greener and the emissions go down," said Sen.
Michael Barrett, co-chair of the Telecommunications,
Utilities and Energy Committee....
Barrett said he has been
working on assembling the package of legislation since June
and that its overall goal is for the state "to do its part
in keeping global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius
above pre-industrial levels," something he characterized as
"very hard to do."
"Actually getting there is
really going to take everything Massachusetts can muster,"
he said. "The language in this bill is very no-nonsense
about how we're going to get there."
On carbon pricing, the bill
takes a similar approach to language the Senate approved in
2018, leaving it up to the governor and executive branch to
choose a specific methodology but setting deadlines for its
adoption. That measure did not survive talks with the House
last session and was dropped from the clean energy bill that
ultimately became law....
Giving latitude to the
governor rather than spelling out a specific mechanism
helped get more senators on board with the idea of carbon
pricing last session, Barrett said.
This year's bill allows the
governor to choose among a revenue-neutral fee, a
revenue-positive tax, or a cap and trade system like the
Transportation Climate Initiative Gov. Charlie Baker is
pursuing with other states. It would require a
carbon-pricing mechanism to be in effect for the
transportation sector by Jan. 1, 2022, for commercial,
industrial and institutional buildings by Jan. 1, 2025, and
residential buildings by Jan. 1, 2030....
The bill's cost implications,
for consumers, businesses and property owners, were not the
focus of a briefing senators held Thursday morning before
the bills were introduced during an 11 a.m. Senate session.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Carbon Pricing a Cornerstone of Senate Climate Package
Three Bills on Agenda for Jan. 30 Session
A new statewide poll shows
that the majority of Massachusetts residents are
circumstantially opposed to the Transportation Climate
Initiative, a regional agreement that would raise gas prices
in an effort to reduce carbon emissions.
The poll, released Wednesday
by the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, found that just over
61 percent of people said they strongly or somewhat oppose
Massachusetts joining TCI if neighboring states decide not
to join.
“What’s very clear to me is,
based off this poll, people do care about making sure
Massachusetts has a clean environment,” Mass. Fiscal
Alliance spokesman Paul Craney told the Herald. “But when
you compare the TCI to issue of taxes, fees and fuel costs,
those are paramount. Voters here have strong opinions on
making sure those things are affordable. I think it’s
because they’re sensitive to the notion of ‘taxachusetts’.”
...
The survey was the first to
take the temperature of voters on the issue since a draft
agreement came out in December, resulting in New Hampshire’s
abrupt rejection of the measure. Commissioned by MassFiscal
Alliance and conducted by Jim Eltringham of Advantage Inc, a
D.C.-based polling company, 712 likely Massachusetts voters
were contacted between Jan. 14-19....
The regional uncertainty has
been a cause for concern for House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who
has promised to release his own revenue package for
transportation in the coming months. The poll also found
that more than 63 percent of Massachusetts voters strongly
or somewhat oppose paying the TCI fuel costs and any
additional gasoline taxes increased by the legislature.
“Every data set tells a story
and it really does tell a story,” [pollster] Eltringham
said. “When people are asked if they support a measure to
help environment that has this price tag from their own
wallet, that’s when you start seeing the dip.”
The Boston Herald
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Poll shows Massachusetts majority oppose cost of TCI
The fate of the
Massachusetts-led compact to cap vehicle emissions is
unclear after multiple governors expressed skepticism about
its costs, but state Transportation Secretary Stephanie
Pollack believes history shows the concerns will not be
fatal.
More than a decade ago, when
officials from Northeast states were drafting the framework
for the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative program that caps
emissions from the energy sector, onlookers raised questions
about its viability, Pollack said Tuesday. The
Transportation and Climate Initiative, modeled on the
10-state RGGI partnership, now faces similar pressure, and
Pollack thinks that it will follow its predecessor once
again.
"Right before RGGI was put
together, it looked like RGGI was going to fall apart. No
states were going to sign on. It wasn't going to happen.
People were concerned: too complicated, why would we throw
our hat in with the other states, all that stuff," Pollack
said at a Tuesday event. "We've heard it all before, worked
through it, got to where we are 10 years later."
Despite those concerns, RGGI
— which former Gov. Deval Patrick joined in 2007 — has
generated $3 billion to invest in the electric grid and
participating states have performed 90 percent better than
the rest of the country at reducing electric-sector
greenhouse gas emissions while watching prices fall, Pollack
said.
"We've done it as a group,
and this is why Gov. (Charlie) Baker and Lt. Gov (Karyn)
Polito and I and Environmental Affairs Secretary (Kathleen)
Theoharides are so committed to the Transportation and
Climate Initiative: because we know that it can work,"
Pollack said....
Democratic legislative
leaders in Massachusetts have not fully embraced TCI,
despite estimates that it could net the state $500 million
or more in revenue to reinvest in clean transit.
In an interview on WCVB that
aired Sunday, House Speaker Robert DeLeo put a two-year to
three-year timeframe on TCI becoming operational and said
that's too long to wait. "I don't think we have that
luxury," he said.
"I don't think we can rely on
something which I would say is very questionable at this
time," he said.
While House leaders have
delayed their planned debate on transportation revenues,
DeLeo said they can't wait much longer.
"We need an immediate
infusion of funds relative to the T. I don't think this is
anything that can wait. And I think it's about time that we
got serious about it," he said. Employers are concerned
about the MBTA forcing employees to be late for work, he
said, and people need reliable transportation to schools and
hospitals.
DeLeo also raised questions
about support levels for the multi-state compact.
"I'm not looking to be the
person that's going to say that this may be dead on
arrival," he said. "But what I'm also smart enough to know,
or read anyways, is the fact that as I'm looking at all
these surrounding states I really haven't seen any state
that has come out in favor of this. Now, maybe if the
governor is strong enough, it can change that persuasion,
persuade the other states, or governors or whoever he has to
convince. Maybe we can have a different discussion, but as
we're preparing and as we're talking about transportation, I
don't think that is something we can rely on at this time
because I think its future is so uncertain." ...
Increasing the state's
24-cents-per-gallon gas tax is not guaranteed to have the
same greenhouse gas reduction goals as TCI, Pollack said,
noting that statewide emissions have increased since the
last gas tax hike was approved in 2013.
"The best way to
simultaneously ensure that we can reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and have money to invest is the Transportation and
Climate Initiative," Pollack said. "It's not an either/or.
We're not saying it's the only revenue source. But I am
telling you, without that platform, anyone in this room that
believes we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to save
the planet, there is not another idea on the table to do
this in the transportation sector."
As a candidate for governor
in 2010, Baker said he wasn't sure he supported the compact
that Patrick joined.
"I'm willing to participate
as long as it doesn't cost Massachusetts jobs and money. I
don't know if I'm against it or not. I view that as
something that needs to be reviewed," he said at the time.
As governor since 2015, Baker
has supported RGGI.
State House News Service
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Pollack Sees TCI on Same Track as RGGI
DeLeo: Emissions Agreement "Very Questionable At This Time"
Massachusetts is in a
dangerous situation. Within the next few months, Governor
Charlie Baker may impose a fee on fuel providers that would
add up to 17 cents a gallon on gasoline – for starters. (He
claims he can do it on his own.) Around the same time,
Democratic state legislators could ram through a major
increase in the gas tax.
Sky-is-falling climate change
activists say these measures are necessary – and not enough,
even – to reduce carbon emissions that they say cause
climate change, which they say is bad. (Cue our skepticism
on every point in that last sentence.) They claim the
punitive cost increases will somehow persuade people not to
drive where they need to go, and that the money will be used
to improve public transportation to the point where people
won’t want to drive nearly as much as they do now. (Did you
keep a straight face through that last one?)
But let’s focus on cost....
The gas tax hits everyone in
Massachusetts, multiple times. There’s the cost at the pump,
which hurts poor people who have to drive to work and to the
store. It also hurts everyone who sells any products or buys
any products, since the vast majority of products need
trucks to get where they’re going, which need gasoline or
diesel to get there. As some people note, there’s no such
thing as free shipping – that cost is figured in somewhere.
Democratic leaders in the
state Legislature haven’t said how much more they’d like to
take from our debit cards. But imagine come summer a similar
increase to what Baker is looking at – let’s see, 17 cents
plus 17 cents … that makes 34 cents a gallon.
Yikes.
Charlie Baker and Democrats
on Beacon Hill should realize that they didn’t create the
golden goose in Massachusetts … but they could kill it.
A New Boston Post editorial
Friday, January 24, 2020
Precarious Gas Tax Situation Should Have Massachusetts
Residents On War Path
Good news: The political
panic over climate change doesn’t justify one-man rule.
That’s the message the Washington Supreme Court delivered
this week to Governor Jay Inslee, who tried to impose his
command-and-control agenda by fiat.
Perhaps you heard Mr. Inslee
for a millisecond in the presidential race last year
declaring that climate change is “the most urgent challenge
of our time.” He failed to galvanize the masses, much as he
failed to persuade the Washington Legislature in 2015 when
it rejected his cap-and-trade proposal.
Mr. Inslee then decided to
write his own law. “Washingtonians have too much at stake to
wait any longer for legislative action,” his office said in
a news release at the time. The Washington Department of
Ecology proceeded to promulgate its own carbon caps in 2016.
Mr. Inslee's new regulation
applied to “direct emitters” like refineries but also
“indirect emitters” like fuel distributors, which are not
themselves “sources” of carbon-dioxide emissions. To comply,
businesses had to cut their emissions or buy carbon credits
or invest in carbon offsets. Indirect emitters’ only option
was to pay up.
The rule’s total compliance
costs could run as high as $6.9 billion over 20 years,
according to the Department of Ecology’s economic impact
analysis. And the Washington Supreme Court noted that “of
those emissions covered by the Rule, approximately 74
percent are generated by the combustion of products sold by
natural gas and petroleum product producers and importers.”
The Association of Washington
Business and four natural-gas distributors sued. In a 5-4
ruling Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court rebuked Mr.
Inslee’s lawless overreach and invalidated the portions of
the regulation that apply to businesses that aren’t sources
of emissions....
“The plain meaning of the
Act’s ‘emissions standards’ definition limits the scope of
Ecology’s authority to promulgate emissions standards to
those entities that actually emit air pollutants,” Chief
Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the majority. “Left
unchecked, Ecology’s expansive interpretation of its own
authority would sweep many newly branded ‘indirect emitters’
into the regulatory web.” She added that the Legislature is
free to write a law that covers indirect emitters.
Democrats control the House
and Senate in Washington, and Mr. Inslee is welcome to try
to persuade them to adopt his anti-fossil-fuel obsessions.
But they’ll have to answer to Washington voters, who will
pay in higher energy and other costs. As good progressives
like to say, this is what democracy looks like.
The Wall Street Journal
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Opinion | Review & Outlook
Inslee’s Climate of Illegality
A court says Washington’s Governor can’t impose cap and
trade by fiat.
With political clout in
Washington, D.C. and billions of dollars in federal funding
at stake, Massachusetts and more than a dozen other states
are spending unprecedented amounts of money on outreach and
preparations for the 2020 census to get the decennial count
right.
Collectively, at least 27
states have spent or committed more than $316 million for
the effort, according to data from the National Conference
of State Legislatures.
Massachusetts has earmarked
at least $6.25 million this fiscal year for 2020 census
outreach and preparations, the seventh largest amount among
all states.
The state is pegging $3.5
million for competitive grants to community groups and local
governments to do public outreach, as well as $2.75 million
for technical assistance and post-census work, according to
the Secretary of State’s office, which oversees the state’s
count. The money was allocated by the Legislature as part of
the state budget.
“This is the first time in
Massachusetts and other states when an enormous amount of
money is being devoted to get a full count,” said Eva
Millona, who chairs the state’s Complete Count Committee
that is coordinating the outreach. “It’s extremely important
that we make these investments, because the census is about
power, money and respect.”
Much of the money is going to
cities, towns and community organizations, she said, because
they have stronger ties and more credibility with
hard-to-count populations such as low-income residents,
immigrants, transient college students, the elderly, and
indigenous peoples.
Millona, who is also
executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant Refugee
Advocacy Coalition, said the outreach is aimed at making
sure everyone is counted.
It’s a task complicated by
misconceptions that the information will be misused and
fears of the federal government in many immigrant
communities, she said....
Census data determines
funding formulas for the next decade for federal spending on
infrastructure, health care, education and affordable
housing.
More than $1.5 trillion in
funding for state and local governments is parceled out
according to census data, according to Andrew Reamer, a
professor and researcher at the George Washington Institute
of Public Policy, who is studying the census’ role in the
distribution of federal funds....
In fiscal year 2017,
Massachusetts received more than $38.2 billion in federal
funding that was connected to census data, Reamer said,
citing his latest research.
The federal dollars went to
everything from transportation, health care and community
development block grants to affordable housing, special
education and school breakfast programs....
Besides guiding how federal
money is distributed, this year’s census also will determine
how many congressional seats each state gets.
Massachusetts, for example,
has nine representatives in Congress, which could increase
or decrease depending on the count.
The state lost one
congressional seat after the 2010 count, when its population
— then estimated at 6,547,629 — didn’t grow as fast as the
national average.
In 2018, the U.S. Census
Bureau’s estimate for Massachusetts population was
6,902,149, a growth of 5.41% in nine years....
Concerns about undercounted
populations were stoked by efforts from the Trump
administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020
census. The move was ultimately blocked by the U.S. Supreme
Court but not before it raised concerns that immigrants and
their families — even those living in the U.S. legally —
would avoid the count.
The Salem News
Monday, January 20, 2020
States spending big bucks on census prep
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
Massachusetts has "the highest per capita public debt
burden in the nation," The Boston Herald reported.
Based on the
recent publication by the Tax Foundation the Herald
found:
Key indicators show tax bills
in Massachusetts are not as high as they were in the
past, but the state is still in the Top 10 in many
categories per capita, including:
• The second highest corporate
tax collections at $320. The national average
is $139.
• The third highest for individual income tax
collections at $2,146. The national average is
$1,083.
• The fifth highest for state and local tax
collections at $6,469. The U.S. average is
$4,946.
A recent
MoneyWise
report of just the unfunded pension crisis alone
found that Massachusetts ranked 10th-worst state in the
nation:
The pension
program in Massachusetts is just 59.9% funded and is
$35.7 billion in debt.
To fill its
pension gap, the state would need to collect $5,202
from each resident — including adults and children.
And let's not
forget that Beacon Hill spends
304% more than the national average for
state-maintained highway lane-miles.
Nonetheless,
the spending binge plows ahead in one of the
worst-managed states in the nation.
State House
News Service last summer on July 31, 2019 reported on
the passage of the current state budget ("Baker
okays all spending in record $43.3 Bil budget" by
Katie Lannan):
Gov. Charlie Baker on Wednesday
accomplished something House Speaker Robert DeLeo,
who joined the Legislature in 1991, said he does not
remember seeing happen before: signing the
annual state budget without issuing a single
spending veto.
Placing the bottom line at
$43.3 billion, Baker signed the annual budget just
after 10 a.m. Wednesday, nearly a full month after
the start of fiscal 2020 on July 1.
This week the
governor proposed spending $44.6 billion in the upcoming fiscal 2021
budget
— an additional $1.3
billion over this fiscal year's record budget spending.
According to
the Baker administration, "the governor's budget would
increase overall state spending by 2.3 percent above the
current fiscal year."
Stop right
here and think of this: Just 2.3 percent of
the current fiscal year's spending amounts to $1.3 billion.
Just ten years
ago the Legislature passed its
FY 2011 budget for $27.6 billion. That was
$17 billion less than Gov. Baker's proposed
spending, only ten years later. 2.3 percent of
that FY 2011 budget would have been $635 million.
2.3 percent today is $1.3 billion.
This is what happens when unfettered spending
incrementally increases by more than a billion taxpayers' dollars
piled on year after year.
Instead of
pulling back from the precipice before wildly racing over
the edge into oblivion, Gov. Baker and the other
Beacon Hill spendthrifts pile on more ridiculous spending schemes
and plot higher taxes to pay for them. I very much
fear governance in Massachusetts is finally, completely
out of control, running on a death wish on automatic
pilot. It has become unable to help itself, does
not even recognize it has a problem
— let alone how
self-destructive it is.
The Boston
Herald
editorial of January 16 summed it up succinctly:
But in
these parts, the word solution is synonymous with
money, as in taxpayer money. And as long as there
are taxpayers, there are solutions to any problems
the state will encounter.
I would add,
"as long as there are taxpayers, there are solutions to
any problems the state will encounter"
— and conjure, contrive, and
even create.
Now that it
has an apparently popular (in some circles) new cause to
wield as an excuse for jacking up unlimited revenue, not
only is the Baker administration roaring ahead with its
flailing Transportation Climate Initiative scheme but
it's doubling down. In the name of "climate
change" the Governor now wants to eliminate its effects
entirely through his "net-zero carbon emissions" in the
next thirty years, by 2050. His Secretary of Energy and Environmental
Affairs, Kathleen Theoharides, said "the state needs to not
only reduce emissions from transportation and buildings,
but also focus on land conservation, agricultural and
wetlands protection measures to facilitate carbon
storage."
Sheesh,
they're coming at us from every direction.
The
Legislature is still intent on raising taxes on its own
for "transportation needs" regardless of Baker's
Boondoggle, TCI. They can't wait for it to begin
raking in hundreds of millions from its gas "fee."
It is moving ahead with its own gas tax, on top of TCI
if it should be imposed.
TCI is where
we are focused right now, where we must be
focused. First, if it is accepted and imposed it
will be forever. Surrendering our state
sovereignty should be a non-starter. We cannot
hand it over to some nameless group of unaccountable
bureaucrats somewhere who will have the power to impose
any amount they desire at a time and place of their
choosing without any restriction. As bad as the
Legislature's expected gas tax hike would be, it would
at least be possible to hold them accountable,
perhaps vote them out of office and repeal their greedy
money grab. If established, TCI will be forever
untouchable — which is
exactly why it is popular among the ruling class.
On a promising
note, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington state tried the
"executive order" route much as Gov. Baker is
attempting, to impose his own "carbon tax" by
royal decree. It was
shot down in court. The Wall Street Journal
reported that last week:
In a 5-4
ruling Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court
rebuked Mr. Inslee’s lawless overreach and
invalidated the portions of the regulation that
apply to businesses that aren’t sources of
emissions.
So many
revelations and threats erupted over the past week that
I can't possibly cover all of them here without burying
you. You can read the following news excerpts and
full reports to grasp the gravity of the situation for
taxpayers. It's pretty discouraging but the fight
must go on; we must persevere or surrender.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
The Boston Herald
Monday, January 20, 2020
Massachusetts tax scorecard
shows worrisome grades
Gov. Baker says credit rating not at risk,
pensions on schedule
By Joe Dwinell and Stefan Geller
Massachusetts is home to great colleges, amazing
hospitals, high-tech success stories — and a
dismal business tax climate.
That includes the highest per capita public debt
burden in the nation, according to the national
Tax Foundation, [Full
Report], driven partly by six-figure state
pensions, as the Herald reported this week.
The result is the Bay State is ranked as having
the 36th most competitive state business tax
climate in the nation, according to the
Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation.
“The tax health of the state is not good,” said
Michael Lucci, vice president of state projects
for the nonprofit. “The state has a relatively
high tax burden, especially compared to New
Hampshire.”
The foundation ranks the Granite State among the
Top 10 states for taxes on business, with
Wyoming coming in first followed by South
Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Montana then New
Hampshire.
Connecticut, California, New York and New Jersey
are rated as having the worst state business tax
climate for 2020, the foundation states.
“Massachusetts as a whole has high income and
strong growth and education is a key driver,”
Lucci told the Herald. “But having a better tax
code can make that better … and help the state
if a recession were to hit.”
Key indicators show tax bills in Massachusetts
are not as high as they were in the past, but
the state is still in the Top 10 in many
categories per capita, including:
• The second highest corporate tax collections
at $320. The national average is $139.
• The third highest for individual income tax
collections at $2,146. The national average is
$1,083.
• The fifth highest for state and local tax
collections at $6,469. The U.S. average is
$4,946.
“The Taxachusetts label is not completely gone
but it has improved. It is still a high tax
state,” Lucci added.
Gov. Charlie Baker said Saturday “the single
biggest thing we heard from the rating agencies
… is actually not about pensions and debt, it
was about the state of the state’s stabilization
fund, and over the past several years we have
basically tripled the size of our stabilization
fund to $3.5 billion. It’s as big as it’s ever
been.”
Baker said the pension payouts are “on a
schedule” and the state will “fund them every
single year on the schedule” that reaches to
2037.
UMass Amherst economics professor emeritus David
Kotz urged continued investment in state
infrastructure.
“Look at China. That country grew so fast
because because the government invested in
high-class railways and roads,” said Kotz.
“We’ve got to invest in what we’re good at.”
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 17, 2020
Massachusetts state pension,
debt liability ‘at crisis level’
More than 1,400 retired state workers paid
$100,000 or more;
11 $200,000 and up and two $300,000-plus
Massachusetts has the highest per capita public
debt burden in the nation — and it’s a bill
millennials will be saddled with as state
pensions continue to climb, fiscal watchdogs
say.
The latest pension report provided to the Herald
from the state comptroller’s office shows
six-figure payouts to retirees are not easing
up. Two pensioners topped $300,000 a year in
2019 and 11 others were paid $200,000 or more,
records show.
On top of that, more than 1,400 other retired
state workers were paid $100,000 or more last
year, according to the data, and another
1,100-plus took home $90,000 or more. And all
pension payouts are not subject to state taxes.
The costly pensions will continue to be a drag
on the budget through 2037, experts warn.
“Millennials will need to address massive debt
and these high pensions for years and if the
economy turns, they will have to do it quicker,”
said Paul Craney, spokesman for the Mass Fiscal
Alliance. And, he added, he’s a 38-year-old
millennial.
“The pensions are unbelievable. The current crop
of leaders on Beacon Hill are just burying their
heads in the sand,” Craney added.
Mass Fiscal Alliance and others are also warning
that the pension obligation could also harm the
state’s credit rating making borrowing for major
projects — from fixing the MBTA to improving
roads and bridges — more expensive.
“We’re talking about big increases and every
year and the cost is expected to go up almost
10% a year,” said Heath Fahle, policy director
for the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation.
“Health care, local aid, public safety, MBTA and
road projects all get squeezed a little by these
rapidly growing pension payments,” said Fahle.
“Credit rating agencies are noticing.”
Fahle was the author of a report out earlier
this week saying Massachusetts could be facing
an $880 million budget gap next year due to
slowing tax revenue and bills due — including
pensions.
That report — titled “First Look: Tough Choices
Ahead in Fiscal 2021” — said MassHealth and
Chapter 70 state education spending are also
big-ticket items that may force lawmakers to cut
the budget or raise taxes.
Former state Inspector General Gregg Sullivan,
now with the Pioneer Institute, said the state
needs to look to other solutions when it comes
to pensions.
“The state needs to consider inviting new
employees to go on 401(k) programs,” said
Sullivan Thursday night. “The state pension
system, and that includes teachers, is
underfunded by $43 billion. That’s mammoth.
“It’s at a crisis level,” he added, “and we’re
just kicking the can down the road and the
credit-rating agencies are noticing.”
The 126,000-plus pension payouts studied by the
Herald show former provosts, professors,
prosecutors, teachers, social workers, toll
collectors and prison guards collecting hefty
checks. Two former UMass Medical School
officials top the list with both pulling down
$347,000 and $348,000 a year in pensions. The
list goes on from there.
MoneyWise
The States Where Taxpayers Should Worry Most
About Pensions
October 24, 2019
Most American workers can't get pensions
anymore, though state and local government
employees are an exception. But their pensions —
providing regular income in retirement — have
become a costly burden for states and their
citizens.
Many state pension plans, covering government
workers at both the state and local level, are
underfunded. There's not enough money to pay all
the benefits promised to current and future
retirees, and residents might one day have to
cough up more tax dollars to cover those costs.
Using data from the Pew Charitable Trusts, the
Foundation for Economic Education, and
Governing.com, we've ranked the states, going
from those with the healthiest pensions systems
to the ones with the biggest pension problems —
potentially for taxpayers.
11. Mississippi
10. Massachusetts
The pension program in Massachusetts is just
59.9% funded and is $35.7 billion in debt.
To fill its pension gap, the state would need to
collect $5,202 from each resident — including
adults and children. That would provide enough
funding to pay out all of the retirement
benefits promised to state and local government
employees in Massachusetts.
In this state, led by Republican Gov. Charlie
Baker, there are currently an estimated 278,000
public employees providing a wide range of
services.
9. Pennsylvania
8. Hawaii
7. South Carolina
6. Rhode Island
5. Colorado
4. Connecticut
3. Illinois
2. New Jersey
1. Kentucky
State House News
Service
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Baker Budget Pushes Spending
Up to $44.6 Bil
Larger Increases for Education, Transportation,
Pensions
By Colin A. Young
With the $44.6 billion fiscal 2021 budget his
administration unveiled Wednesday, Gov. Charlie
Baker said Massachusetts would be able to fully
fund both the letter and spirit of the new
education funding law, make sizeable investments
in public transit and workforce training, and
still stash more money away for an eventual
economic downturn.
"Every year, we're tasked with filing a budget
to balance the books and make smart fiscal
decisions but our budgets are far more than just
a list of dollar amounts and line items," Baker
said. "It is a body of work that reflects the
priorities and needs of the people of this great
commonwealth. It is designed to help our
residents in every corner of the state find the
support that they need to access a quality
education, secure a good-paying job, and find a
safe and strong community to live and raise
their family in."
The central themes of the Baker administration's
sixth budget (H 2) are education and
transportation, Administration and Finance
Secretary Michael Heffernan said. Public schools
would see $355 million in new spending -- the
first payment towards a $1.5 billion, seven-year
overhaul of the state's public education funding
formula -- and the budget newly directs $216.7
million to the MBTA and other transportation
agencies to address safety and infrastructure
issues.
Baker's budget was built on the consensus
agreement of his administration and lawmakers
that the state will collect an estimated $31.15
billion in tax revenue during fiscal 2021 -- 2.8
percent growth, modest compared to recent years
of higher-than-expected collections that
resulted in large surpluses.
The governor's budget would increase overall
state spending by 2.3 percent above the current
fiscal year, according to the administration,
and accounts for a $96 million reduction in tax
revenue associated with the income tax rate
having dropped to 5 percent, a reduction of $95
million because of the state's new restrictions
on the sales of vaping products, and another $64
million reduction from the scheduled
re-emergence of a charitable giving tax
deduction.
Baker's spending plan assumes the state will
pull in $282.7 million in revenue from casino
gaming, $146 million in marijuana taxes and
another $14 million from Cannabis Control
Commission license payments and fines.
It also assumes $35 million in revenue from an
activity that is still illegal in Massachusetts
-- sports betting -- another $16 million from an
opioid tax the governor has asked the
Legislature to approve, and the $237 million in
one-time revenue that would materialize if the
Legislature goes along with the governor's sales
tax modernization plan.
State House News
Service
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Theoharides Letter Will
Formalize Net-Zero 2050 Target
By Michael P. Norton
Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary
Kathleen Theoharides plans to issue a letter of
determination in the coming weeks to formally
establish a policy of achieving net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050, she told the News Service
Thursday.
Gov. Charlie Baker announced his support for the
2050 target during his State of the Commonwealth
address Tuesday night. The 2008 Global Warming
Solutions Act requires a 2050 target of at least
an 80 percent reduction in emissions, compared
to 1990 levels, but the 2050 target has never
been formally set, the secretary said.
A plan the administration will release later
this year will feature tactical steps the
administration plans to take to reach the goal,
and Theorharides said the state needs to not
only reduce emissions from transportation and
buildings, but also focus on land conservation,
agricultural and wetlands protection measures to
facilitate carbon storage. Generally speaking,
the goal will be to pursue the most cost
effective approaches that reduce the most
carbon, she said.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President
Karen Spilka on Tuesday also announced their
support for a net-zero by 2050 target. "We were
not expecting that announcement then,"
Theoharides said.
The Boston Herald
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Baker doubles down on TCI,
vows net-zero emissions by 2050
By Mary Markos
Gov. Charlie Baker doubled down on his support
for the controversial Transportation Climate
Initiative and took it a step further in his
State of the State address Tuesday, vowing to
make Massachusetts net-zero greenhouse gas
emissions in the next 30 years.
“We must continue to take bold action to reduce
our greenhouse gas emissions,” Baker said in his
speech. “I get that this is going to be hard,
but together we have a real opportunity and a
responsibility to achieve a significant
reduction in transportation emissions.”
Baker’s allegiance to the initiative, which
would implement a gas fee to reduce carbon
emissions, continues as neighboring New England
states have cast doubt on whether they will
participate. The regional uncertainty has been a
cause for concern for House Speaker Robert DeLeo.
“Tonight, I’m committing the Commonwealth to
achieving an ambitious climate goal: net-zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,” Baker said.
“That is why we’re working with our colleagues
across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states on
a Regional Transportation and Climate
Initiative.”
Officials have estimated the measure would raise
gas prices between 5 to 17 cents per gallon in
the first year but it remains unclear how high
that cost could rise in subsequent years. Baker
argued the regional initiative, which
encompasses 70 million people and 50 million
vehicles, would take on 40 percent of the
state’s total emissions produced by
transportation.
“Unless we take on transportation, we won’t meet
our objectives,” Baker said.
During Baker’s speech, MassFiscal Alliance
announced on Twitter they will be releasing
details of a new statewide poll they conducted
on the TCI Wednesday.
“No matter what was said tonight, the benefits
to TCI do not outweigh the costs,” MassFiscal
Alliance Spokesman Paul Craney said. “Almost all
of the New England states have raised concerns
with the regressive nature of the program and
tonight’s speech will not change that.
Massachusetts voters care deeply about keeping
costs low and TCI will only dramatically
increase the cost of living and doing business
in Massachusetts.”
Baker’s speech also focused on education,
housing, climate change and fiscal
responsibility. He spoke about the state of the
MBTA, calling the loss of time and lack of
reliability “unacceptable,” and promising an
increase of $135 million in operating funds for
the T in the Administration’s 2021 budget.
“The governor laid out an ambitious and much
needed plan for transportation infrastructure
but then distracted his audience by announcing
the unachievable and harmful goal of net zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050,” said David
Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute.
“Worse still, he endorsed the ‘Transportation
Climate Initiative,’ which would drive up gas
prices and shrink the economy without producing
any measurable improvement in the climate.”
The New Boston Post
Friday, January 24, 2020
Climate-Change Activists Like
Baker’s Net-Zero Emissions Goal,
But Skeptics Are Counting the Cost
By Tom Joyce
During his State of the Commonwealth address on
Tuesday night, Massachusetts Governor Charlie
Baker set a lofty goal for net-zero carbon
emissions in 30 years without a plan to do it.
Reactions are mixed.
Baker’s pledge is more ambitious than the one
then-Governor Deval Patrick made in 2008.
Patrick called for an 80 percent reduction by
2050, a goal set forth in the state’s Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2008.
During his speech, Baker did not lay out a
specific plan to meet this goal and the
governor’s press office did not respond to a
request for comment via email on Wednesday or
Thursday when asked what Baker wants to do to
reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Baker on Tuesday emphasized a proposed state
government fee on fuel providers that could
increase the cost of gasoline to drivers by up
to 17 cents a gallon. Known as the
Transportation and Climate Initiative, it’s
supposed to be a regional approach from Maine to
Virginia, though several states have been
bailing on the idea since cost estimates came
out in December.
A spokesman for the Baker administration’s
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs also emphasized the proposed gas fee
when contacted by New Boston Post.
“Continuing the Baker-Polito Administration’s
national leadership on climate change, Governor
Baker is taking bold action by committing the
Commonwealth to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050,” agency spokesman Katie
Gronedyke said in an email message. “As the
transportation sector accounts for more than 40
percent of greenhouse gas emissions, the
Transportation and Climate Initiative, a
bipartisan, regional effort to develop a
market-based program to reduce the emissions
that cause climate change and invest in clean
transportation options, will be critical to
achieving this ambitious goal.”
Baker drew praised from anti-climate-change
environmentalist organizations, including the
Environmental League of Massachusetts.
“ELM has been a strong advocate to update our
climate targets to achieve net-zero emissions by
2050. We applaud Governor Baker for committing
Massachusetts to emissions reductions that the
latest science demands,” said Ellen Tomlinson,
communications manager for the Environmental
League of Massachusetts. “Climate change is
affecting our health, our economy, and our way
of life. This commitment is the kind of action
we need from our elected officials to protect
ourselves from the worst impacts of the climate
crisis.”
Skeptics wonder how far Baker is willing to go
to pursue his new goal, and how much damage it
might do to the state’s economy.
“Massachusetts leaders should focus on problems
the state is facing in 2020 instead of imposing
unfunded mandates and unrealistic targets for
2050,” said Paul Craney, executive director of
the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, in an email
message to New Boston Post.
Christopher Carlozzi, the state director for the
National Federation of Independent
Business-Massachusetts, worries that Baker’s
goal will open the door for anti-business
policies.
“Massachusetts small businesses already face
some of the highest energy costs in the nation,”
Carlozzi wrote in an email message to New Boston
Post. “The legislature should examine ways to
lower energy costs to provide opportunities for
Main Street businesses to grow and create new
jobs. If net-zero emissions mean enacting new
fees and carbon taxes like the Transportation
and Climate Initiative, it will increase
operating costs for Massachusetts small
businesses struggling to compete with other
parts of the nation where costs are lower.”
Some Democratic state legislators are filling in
the blanks of what anti-climate-change
legislation could look like.
As of Thursday afternoon, four bills had been
filed in the Massachusetts Legislature with the
intent of lowering Massachusetts’s carbon
emissions.
One measure would set energy-efficient standards
for certain new household and commercial
appliances. (It’s called An Act Relative to
Energy Savings Efficiency (Massachusetts Senate
Bill 2478).)
Another amounts to a bill to set goals – it
would set five-year goals for what the state
must do to achieve net zero carbon emissions by
2050 without mandating any. Ideas mentioned in
the proposal include “electric vehicles,
electric vehicle charging stations, solar
photovoltaic and solar thermal technologies,
energy storage capacity and air-source and
ground-source heat pumps. (It’s called An Act
Setting Next-Generation Climate Policy
(Massachusetts Senate Bill 2477).)
One bill would whack medium-size and major
employers with an excise tax based on the number
of people they employ, apparently on the theory
that employers cause traffic by requiring that
employees go to a workplace. The head tax would
be $100 per employee for companies with 100 to
499 employees, $225 per employee on companies
with 500 to 999 employees, and $350 per employee
for ones employing over 1,000 people. (It’s
called An Act for Providing A Transportation
Excise Tax (HD.4821).)
Another bill would require all public transit in
Massachusetts to be provided via electric buses
by 2040 and for all new buses purchased after
2030 to be electricity-powered. It would also
provide a $1,500 rebate to people buying a
zero-emissions vehicle if the final price is
below $50,000. (It’s called An Act To Accelerate
the Transition of Cars, Trucks, and Buses To
Carbon-Free Power (Massachusetts Senate Bill
2476).
State House News
Service
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Rep: House Ready to Move on
$18 Bil Transpo Bond
Chairs Haven't Agreed to Date for Vote on Bill
By Matt Murphy
The House's top Democrat on the Transportation
Committee said Thursday he's ready to move on
Gov. Charlie Baker's $18 billion borrowing bill
to finance infrastructure improvements over the
next five years, one of the major pillars of the
governor's agenda for 2020.
Rep. William Straus, the House chair of the
Joint Committee on Transportation, said he
reached out by text message over the holiday
weekend to his co-chair Sen. Joseph Boncore to
suggest scheduling an executive session in order
for members of the committee to vote to
recommend a new version of Baker's bill.
The Mattapoisett Democrat said has not received
a response from Boncore, but hopes to avoid
having to seek an extension beyond the Feb. 5
deadline for most committees to report on bills
filed at the start of the session.
"I made the request because I think the House
members are ready," Straus said.
Straus said he was asked about the status of the
bill by several legislators after Baker
mentioned it in his State of the Commonwealth
address on Tuesday night.
While House Democrats have been privately
discussing ways to raise new revenue to fund
transportation improvements, Baker has been
publicly touting the $18 billion bond bill as
largely sufficient to make major investments
over the next five years.
The governor did propose in his fiscal 2021
budget on Wednesday to raise fees on Uber and
Lyft rides by $100 million to boost the
operating budget of the MBTA.
"We know these are big, complicated issues, but
we urge the Legislature to act as quickly as
possible on these bills," Baker said in his
speech, referring to both the bond bill and
legislation to address congestion caused by
ride-hailing services.
The bond bill, the governor said, proposes to
direct $11 billion into road and bridge
improvements and $7 billion into the "expansion
and modernization of transit, commuter rail and
bus services."
The governor has also proposed in the
legislation to create a tax credit for
businesses that allow their employees to
telecommute as an incentive to reduce road
congestion, and to earmark half of all revenues
from the controversial, still-in-development
regional cap-and-trade program known as the
Transportation Climate Initiative to public
transit.
The Legislature over the years has been
generally receptive to advancing bond bills,
which authorize capital spending over multiple
years, but Democrats in the Legislature this
year are also actively pursuing a revenue bill
that could boost recurring sources of funding
for transportation investments.
Straus declined to discuss changes he will
recommend to the governor's bill, but suggested
that the House will not seek to increase the
total amount of borrowing above $18 billion.
There could, however, be policy changes.
"It's unlikely that the same bill that the
governor filed is the one that the committee
would report. There would be things changed,
deleted and added," Straus said.
Boncore was on a flight to Washington, D.C. on
Thursday afternoon and was not available for an
interview, but his office issued a statement on
Straus's request.
"The Transportation Bond Bill remains a Senate
priority. I continue to work with my co-chair to
get this bill out of committee. Every penny of
the $18 billion proposed funding is critical to
the transportation infrastructure in
municipalities from Provincetown to Pittsfield,"
the Winthrop Democrat said.
Executive sessions have become far less common
in the Legislature in recent years as chairs
from both the House and Senate have preferred to
poll committee members over email in order to
report out legislation.
"This kind of bond bill is a little different in
terms of how the membership looks at it, so I
thought there are likely House members of the
committee and Senate members of the committee
who would like to express some views and input,"
Straus said.
Under the rules of the committee, the two chairs
must be in agreement before an executive session
can be scheduled. Another member of the
committee from the Senate told the News Service
Thursday they had not heard from their chairman
about a possible date for a vote.
The committee, which is controlled by Democrats,
has 20 members, including seven senators and 13
House members. Only four of those members are
Republicans.
"I'd like to see it move," Straus said. "This is
not a bill I think anyone wants to sit on."
The Transportation Committee held a hearing in
October when Gov. Baker testified in person in
support of his bond bill, which he filed in July
and is the first such borrowing bill focused on
transportation since former Gov. Deval Patrick
signed a $14 billion version in 2014.
The governor's bill also proposed contract and
procurement reforms to speed up projects and
recommended a new $100 million paving program to
help municipalities maintain state numbers, but
locally owned roads.
State House News
Service
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
On Tap: Senate Plans Climate
Bill Rollout Thursday
Pacheco Expects Net-Zero Emissions Requirement
By Chris Lisinski
The Massachusetts Senate plans to roll out a
"comprehensive climate change bill" on Thursday,
officials announced Tuesday, and one senator
told reporters he expects the bill to feature a
net-zero emissions requirement by 2050.
Senate President Karen Spilka and Sen. Mike
Barrett, who co-chairs the Telecommunications,
Utilities and Energy Committee, announced in a
30-second video posted to social media that they
would unveil the bill's contents on Thursday.
"The youth of the Commonwealth have urged us in
no uncertain terms to take bold action to combat
climate change right here in Massachusetts,"
Spilka says in the video.
The Senate often introduces bills on Thursday,
along with plans to debate the bills the
following week.
Sen. Marc Pacheco, who chairs the Senate
Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change,
pushed his colleagues for months to address
climate change before securing agreement from
Spilka last November to produce legislation by
Jan. 31.
Pacheco told reporters the Senate Ways and Means
Committee is forming the bill based on other
pieces of legislation. He said he expects the
comprehensive bill will revise the Global
Warming Solutions Act target of 80 percent
emissions reduction by 2050 to a net-zero
emissions requirement by 2050.
"We know that the world hasn't acted as quickly
as we should be and we haven't acted as quickly
as we should be at the state level," Pacheco
said. "If we're going to do what (the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and
other science tells us, we have to have net zero
by 2050."
The House in July approved a $1.3 billion bond
bill (H 3997) to fund climate resiliency
infrastructure. That bill remains pending before
the Senate Bonding, Capital Expenditures and
State Assets committee.
In his State of the State address, Gov. Charlie
Baker on Tuesday night plans to offer some
details about "key initiatives" to address
climate change.
Activists opposed to some of the Baker
administration's efforts on climate change,
including its position on an unpopular natural
gas compressor station in Weymouth, plan to take
their activism to the State House Tuesday at
6:30 p.m.
Extinction Rebellion, a group that interrupted
Vermont Gov. Phil Scott's recent State of the
State address, announced Tuesday that a
"Governor Baker XR" affiliated with the group
will "give a short address outside the State
House announcing major measures to combat the
climate emergency."
"This is the speech local Massachusetts citizens
concerned about the climate crisis wish the real
Charlie Baker would make," the group said.
— Michael P.
Norton contributed reporting
State House News
Service
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Carbon Pricing a Cornerstone
of Senate Climate Package
Three Bills on Agenda for Jan. 30 Session
By Katie Lannan
The Massachusetts Senate next week plans to take
up a far-reaching package of climate bills whose
major components include an electric MBTA bus
fleet by 2040, carbon-pricing mechanisms for
transportation, homes and commercial buildings,
and a series of five-year greenhouse gas
emissions reduction requirements that ramp up to
net-zero emissions in 2050.
The three bills, teed up for debate on Thursday,
Jan. 30, with amendments due by Monday, amount
to what Senate President Karen Spilka called a
"comprehensive plan for the state" to respond to
an international issue: global climate change.
"This is a race against time," Spilka told
reporters. "Climate change is changing not only
Massachusetts and the United States, it is
changing the face of our planet, and our
planet's survival is at stake."
The carbon pricing and net-zero emissions
provisions are both contained in one piece of
legislation, dubbed An Act Setting
Next-Generation Climate Policy (S 2477). The
other bills address energy efficiency (S 2478)
and electric vehicles (S 2476).
The electric vehicles bill directs the MBTA to
limit its bus purchases and leases to
zero-emissions vehicles starting in 2030 and
operate an entirely zero-emissions passenger bus
fleet by Dec. 31, 2040, according to a Senate
Ways and Means Committee summary. To address
transportation emissions, it also seeks to make
permanent an existing rebate program for
consumers buying electric vehicles.
Targeting both MBTA buses and individual car
purchases is an approach with the goal of
"helping people regardless of income to make
sure that the air gets greener and the emissions
go down," said Sen. Michael Barrett, co-chair of
the Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
Committee.
Barrett said he has been working on assembling
the package of legislation since June and that
its overall goal is for the state "to do its
part in keeping global temperatures below 1.5
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels,"
something he characterized as "very hard to do."
"Actually getting there is really going to take
everything Massachusetts can muster," he said.
"The language in this bill is very no-nonsense
about how we're going to get there."
On carbon pricing, the bill takes a similar
approach to language the Senate approved in
2018, leaving it up to the governor and
executive branch to choose a specific
methodology but setting deadlines for its
adoption. That measure did not survive talks
with the House last session and was dropped from
the clean energy bill that ultimately became
law.
Barrett, a Lexington Democrat, has been filing
bills since 2013 that propose a revenue-neutral
carbon fee, with the money generated returned to
Massachusetts citizens.
"For several years the bill struggled," Barrett
said. "We did not find traction in the House in
particular. I want to be respectful of the
legislative branches and respectful of the
governor. It seemed to me after two or three
years that we weren't moving quickly enough. I
decided I wanted to put a price on carbon by any
path we could lay our hands on, so I backed away
from my preferred method."
Giving latitude to the governor rather than
spelling out a specific mechanism helped get
more senators on board with the idea of carbon
pricing last session, Barrett said.
This year's bill allows the governor to choose
among a revenue-neutral fee, a revenue-positive
tax, or a cap and trade system like the
Transportation Climate Initiative Gov. Charlie
Baker is pursuing with other states. It would
require a carbon-pricing mechanism to be in
effect for the transportation sector by Jan. 1,
2022, for commercial, industrial and
institutional buildings by Jan. 1, 2025, and
residential buildings by Jan. 1, 2030.
Barrett said the 2030 timeframe for residential
carbon pricing is to allow time for cleaner home
heating alternatives to evolve and for more
energy-efficient homes to be built, in hopes of
keeping costs down for homeowners.
The bill's cost implications, for consumers,
businesses and property owners, were not the
focus of a briefing senators held Thursday
morning before the bills were introduced during
an 11 a.m. Senate session.
The idea of requiring Massachusetts to speed up
its carbon emission reduction efforts and hit
net-zero status by 2050 got a significant boost
on Beacon Hill this week, with Baker, Spilka and
House Speaker Robert DeLeo each declaring their
support for the concept. Backing from the
governor and the leaders of the two legislative
houses creates likelihood that some version of a
net-zero emissions policy becomes law this
session. Energy and Environmental Affairs
Secretary Kathleen Theoharides told the News
Service Thursday that she plans to issue a
letter of determination in the coming weeks to
formally establish a policy of achieving
net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
Under the Senate's approach, the secretary of
energy and environmental affairs would be
required to set the limit of net-zero emissions
by 2050, with interim targets every five years,
and develop "comprehensive plans" to reach each
of those limits. The bill requires that the 2030
limit be at least 50 percent below 1990 levels,
and the 2040 limit at least 75 percent below
1990 levels.
A 2008 law requires the state to reduce its
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050. Emissions must be 25 percent lower by
2020, and the most recent data show that
Massachusetts emissions in 2017 were down 22.4
percent from 1990 levels
Since Baker on Tuesday night announced he was
committing the state to net-zero emissions in
2050, some advocates have called for the state
to pursue a more aggressive approach.
"Changing our emissions goal from '80% reduction
by 2050' to 'net zero by 2050' may make no
difference in accelerating the Commonwealth's
transition from fossil fuels to clean energy,"
Ben Hellerstein of Environment Massachusetts
said, calling for the state to instead entirely
eliminate its use of fossil fuels. "Most of the
additional emissions reductions could be met
through dubious offsets and accounting changes."
The press release Spilka's office issued on the
climate legislation included statements of
support from Boston Mayor Martin Walsh, the
Massachusetts Sierra Club, Northeast Clean
Energy Council, the Environmental League of
Massachusetts, Acadia Center and the Mass
Climate Action Network.
Other elements featured in the carbon
emissions-related bill include:
• The establishment of a new Climate Policy
Commission, which Barrett said would serve as an
independent watchdog over government's response
to climate change.
• The creation of a mission statement for the
Department of Public Utilities, requiring it to
prioritize safety, security, reliability of
service, affordability, and emissions
reductions.
• Development of a net-zero energy code that
municipalities could opt into if they choose to
move away from fossil fuels as a heating source.
• Increased membership on the Board of Building
Regulation and Standards, including new seats
for experts in energy efficiency.
• A requirement that solar energy incentive
programs set aside a portion of future
allocations for low-income neighborhoods.
Barrett said climate change has moved so quickly
that state agencies have not had a chance to
catch up.
"The Legislature has to see to it that all the
resources of the executive branch are mustered
together to reach net-zero by 2050, because this
is a heck of a challenge for us, and we can't do
it unless everyone has a laser focus and becomes
serious about the job rather soon," he said.
The Boston Herald
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Poll shows Massachusetts
majority oppose cost of TCI
By Mary Markos
A new statewide poll shows that the majority of
Massachusetts residents are circumstantially
opposed to the Transportation Climate
Initiative, a regional agreement that would
raise gas prices in an effort to reduce carbon
emissions.
The poll, released Wednesday by the
Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, found that just
over 61 percent of people said they strongly or
somewhat oppose Massachusetts joining TCI if
neighboring states decide not to join.
“What’s very clear to me is, based off this
poll, people do care about making sure
Massachusetts has a clean environment,” Mass.
Fiscal Alliance spokesman Paul Craney told the
Herald. “But when you compare the TCI to issue
of taxes, fees and fuel costs, those are
paramount. Voters here have strong opinions on
making sure those things are affordable. I think
it’s because they’re sensitive to the notion of
‘taxachusetts’.”
Governors in New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont
and Maine have already cast a shadow on the
Transportation Climate Initiative, which would
implement a gas fee to reduce carbon emissions.
Officials have estimated the measure would raise
gas prices between 5 to 17 cents per gallon in
the first year but it remains unclear how high
that cost could rise in subsequent years.
The survey was the first to take the temperature
of voters on the issue since a draft agreement
came out in December, resulting in New
Hampshire’s abrupt rejection of the measure.
Commissioned by MassFiscal Alliance and
conducted by Jim Eltringham of Advantage Inc, a
D.C.-based polling company, 712 likely
Massachusetts voters were contacted between Jan.
14-19.
Gov. Charlie Baker doubled down on his support
for the controversial Transportation Climate
Initiative in his State of the State address
Tuesday. His office declined to comment, but
pointed to a MassINC poll taken before the draft
agreement was released that found two-thirds of
voters support the measure.
The regional uncertainty has been a cause for
concern for House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who has
promised to release his own revenue package for
transportation in the coming months. The poll
also found that more than 63 percent of
Massachusetts voters strongly or somewhat oppose
paying the TCI fuel costs and any additional
gasoline taxes increased by the legislature.
“Every data set tells a story and it really does
tell a story,” Eltringham said. “When people are
asked if they support a measure to help
environment that has this price tag from their
own wallet, that’s when you start seeing the
dip.”
State House News
Service
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Pollack Sees TCI on Same Track
as RGGI
DeLeo: Emissions Agreement "Very Questionable At
This Time"
By Chris Lisinski and Michael P. Norton
The fate of the Massachusetts-led compact to cap
vehicle emissions is unclear after multiple
governors expressed skepticism about its costs,
but state Transportation Secretary Stephanie
Pollack believes history shows the concerns will
not be fatal.
More than a decade ago, when officials from
Northeast states were drafting the framework for
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative program
that caps emissions from the energy sector,
onlookers raised questions about its viability,
Pollack said Tuesday. The Transportation and
Climate Initiative, modeled on the 10-state RGGI
partnership, now faces similar pressure, and
Pollack thinks that it will follow its
predecessor once again.
"Right before RGGI was put together, it looked
like RGGI was going to fall apart. No states
were going to sign on. It wasn't going to
happen. People were concerned: too complicated,
why would we throw our hat in with the other
states, all that stuff," Pollack said at a
Tuesday event. "We've heard it all before,
worked through it, got to where we are 10 years
later."
Despite those concerns, RGGI — which former Gov.
Deval Patrick joined in 2007 — has generated $3
billion to invest in the electric grid and
participating states have performed 90 percent
better than the rest of the country at reducing
electric-sector greenhouse gas emissions while
watching prices fall, Pollack said.
"We've done it as a group, and this is why Gov.
(Charlie) Baker and Lt. Gov (Karyn) Polito and I
and Environmental Affairs Secretary (Kathleen)
Theoharides are so committed to the
Transportation and Climate Initiative: because
we know that it can work," Pollack said.
Officials crafting the TCI framework said last
month that they are targeting a cap of 20 to 25
percent on emissions from passenger vehicles.
Suppliers would be allowed to purchase
allowances for every ton of carbon dioxide that
will be released by their fuel.
Vehicle emissions are projected to decline
between 6 percent and 19 percent without any
action due to improvements in fuel efficiency
and changing consumer behaviors, according to
the TCI's model, but supporters say the program
can lock in the reductions at the desired cap.
Achieving that goal would increase gas prices
between 5 and 17 cents per gallon, starting in
2022, according to initial estimates. Program
leaders are collecting public comments until
Feb. 28, after which they will propose a final
cap and states will decide whether to remain in
the compact.
Concerns have grown since the numbers emerged.
The same day as the coalition released its
economic forecast, New Hampshire Gov. Chris
Sununu, a Republican, slammed the proposal as a
"financial boondoggle" and withdrew his state.
Eleven other states and the District of Columbia
are participating in the framework process, but
governors in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine have
expressed doubt about signing onto the program,
as has the House speaker in Rhode Island.
Several opponents argue the emissions reductions
sought by the cap are not worth the impact on
gas prices, particularly because TCI's own
projections shows some or most of the decline
will come without any action from the compact.
They also say the higher fuel costs will be
passed on to small businesses and commuters.
"Private transportation isn't a luxury in Maine.
It's an absolute necessity," Jacob Posik,
spokesman for the Maine Heritage Policy think
tank, said at a summit of opponents last week,
adding that the effects would disproportionately
harm low-income residents. "This is a regressive
tax that will hurt their bottom line and make it
harder for them to get a leg up."
Democratic legislative leaders in Massachusetts
have not fully embraced TCI, despite estimates
that it could net the state $500 million or more
in revenue to reinvest in clean transit.
In an interview on WCVB that aired Sunday, House
Speaker Robert DeLeo put a two-year to
three-year timeframe on TCI becoming operational
and said that's too long to wait. "I don't think
we have that luxury," he said.
"I don't think we can rely on something which I
would say is very questionable at this time," he
said.
While House leaders have delayed their planned
debate on transportation revenues, DeLeo said
they can't wait much longer.
"We need an immediate infusion of funds relative
to the T. I don't think this is anything that
can wait. And I think it's about time that we
got serious about it," he said. Employers are
concerned about the MBTA forcing employees to be
late for work, he said, and people need reliable
transportation to schools and hospitals.
DeLeo also raised questions about support levels
for the multi-state compact.
"I'm not looking to be the person that's going
to say that this may be dead on arrival," he
said. "But what I'm also smart enough to know,
or read anyways, is the fact that as I'm looking
at all these surrounding states I really haven't
seen any state that has come out in favor of
this. Now, maybe if the governor is strong
enough, it can change that persuasion, persuade
the other states, or governors or whoever he has
to convince. Maybe we can have a different
discussion, but as we're preparing and as we're
talking about transportation, I don't think that
is something we can rely on at this time because
I think its future is so uncertain."
Pollack said the program is vital to ensure
Massachusetts achieves its short- and long-term
climate goals, particularly because about 40
percent of all emissions in the state come from
the transportation sector.
Increasing the state's 24-cents-per-gallon gas
tax is not guaranteed to have the same
greenhouse gas reduction goals as TCI, Pollack
said, noting that statewide emissions have
increased since the last gas tax hike was
approved in 2013.
"The best way to simultaneously ensure that we
can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have
money to invest is the Transportation and
Climate Initiative," Pollack said. "It's not an
either/or. We're not saying it's the only
revenue source. But I am telling you, without
that platform, anyone in this room that believes
we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to
save the planet, there is not another idea on
the table to do this in the transportation
sector."
As a candidate for governor in 2010, Baker said
he wasn't sure he supported the compact that
Patrick joined.
"I'm willing to participate as long as it
doesn't cost Massachusetts jobs and money. I
don't know if I'm against it or not. I view that
as something that needs to be reviewed," he said
at the time.
As governor since 2015, Baker has supported RGGI.
The New Boston Post
Friday, January 24, 2020
A New Boston Post editorial
Precarious Gas Tax Situation Should Have
Massachusetts Residents On War Path
Massachusetts is in a dangerous situation.
Within the next few months, Governor Charlie
Baker may impose a fee on fuel providers that
would add up to 17 cents a gallon on gasoline –
for starters. (He claims he can do it on his
own.) Around the same time, Democratic state
legislators could ram through a major increase
in the gas tax.
Sky-is-falling climate change activists say
these measures are necessary – and not enough,
even – to reduce carbon emissions that they say
cause climate change, which they say is bad.
(Cue our skepticism on every point in that last
sentence.) They claim the punitive cost
increases will somehow persuade people not to
drive where they need to go, and that the money
will be used to improve public transportation to
the point where people won’t want to drive
nearly as much as they do now. (Did you keep a
straight face through that last one?)
But let’s focus on cost. Beacon Hill Democrats
look at other states’ higher gas taxes with a
keeping-up-with-the-Joneses mentality – as if
mimicking the relative un-prosperity in
high-gas-tax Connecticut is something to be
longed for.
They’re also clearly pining for more public
funds to feast on – as if they’re being denied
the ice cream that all the other kids on the
playground are getting.
Yet what if Massachusetts’s current prosperity
is in large measure attributable to our
relatively low gas tax? (At 26.54 cents per
gallon. it’s 30th highest in the nation, and
second lowest in New England behind only New
Hampshire’s, and the lowest between New
Hampshire and Delaware.)
The gas tax hits everyone in Massachusetts,
multiple times. There’s the cost at the pump,
which hurts poor people who have to drive to
work and to the store. It also hurts everyone
who sells any products or buys any products,
since the vast majority of products need trucks
to get where they’re going, which need gasoline
or diesel to get there. As some people note,
there’s no such thing as free shipping – that
cost is figured in somewhere.
Democratic leaders in the state Legislature
haven’t said how much more they’d like to take
from our debit cards. But imagine come summer a
similar increase to what Baker is looking at –
let’s see, 17 cents plus 17 cents … that makes
34 cents a gallon.
Yikes.
Charlie Baker and Democrats on Beacon Hill
should realize that they didn’t create the
golden goose in Massachusetts … but they could
kill it.
The Wall Street Journal
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Opinion | Review & Outlook
Inslee’s Climate of Illegality
A court says Washington’s Governor can’t impose
cap and trade by fiat.
Good news: The political panic over climate
change doesn’t justify one-man rule. That’s the
message the Washington Supreme Court delivered
this week to Governor Jay Inslee, who tried to
impose his command-and-control agenda by fiat.
Perhaps you heard Mr. Inslee for a millisecond
in the presidential race last year declaring
that climate change is “the most urgent
challenge of our time.” He failed to galvanize
the masses, much as he failed to persuade the
Washington Legislature in 2015 when it rejected
his cap-and-trade proposal.
Mr. Inslee then decided to write his own law.
“Washingtonians have too much at stake to wait
any longer for legislative action,” his office
said in a news release at the time. The
Washington Department of Ecology proceeded to
promulgate its own carbon caps in 2016.
Mr. Inslee's new regulation applied to “direct
emitters” like refineries but also “indirect
emitters” like fuel distributors, which are not
themselves “sources” of carbon-dioxide
emissions. To comply, businesses had to cut
their emissions or buy carbon credits or invest
in carbon offsets. Indirect emitters’ only
option was to pay up.
The rule’s total compliance costs could run as
high as $6.9 billion over 20 years, according to
the Department of Ecology’s economic impact
analysis. And the Washington Supreme Court noted
that “of those emissions covered by the Rule,
approximately 74 percent are generated by the
combustion of products sold by natural gas and
petroleum product producers and importers.”
The Association of Washington Business and four
natural-gas distributors sued. In a 5-4 ruling
Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court rebuked
Mr. Inslee’s lawless overreach and invalidated
the portions of the regulation that apply to
businesses that aren’t sources of emissions.
“The plain meaning of the Act’s ‘emissions
standards’ definition limits the scope of
Ecology’s authority to promulgate emissions
standards to those entities that actually emit
air pollutants,” Chief Justice Debra Stephens
wrote for the majority. “Left unchecked,
Ecology’s expansive interpretation of its own
authority would sweep many newly branded
‘indirect emitters’ into the regulatory web.”
She added that the Legislature is free to write
a law that covers indirect emitters.
Democrats control the House and Senate in
Washington, and Mr. Inslee is welcome to try to
persuade them to adopt his anti-fossil-fuel
obsessions. But they’ll have to answer to
Washington voters, who will pay in higher energy
and other costs. As good progressives like to
say, this is what democracy looks like.
The Salem News
Monday, January 20, 2020
States spending big bucks on
census prep
By Christian M. Wade, Statehouse Reporter
BOSTON — With political clout in Washington,
D.C. and billions of dollars in federal funding
at stake, Massachusetts and more than a dozen
other states are spending unprecedented amounts
of money on outreach and preparations for the
2020 census to get the decennial count right.
Collectively, at least 27 states have spent or
committed more than $316 million for the effort,
according to data from the National Conference
of State Legislatures.
Massachusetts has earmarked at least $6.25
million this fiscal year for 2020 census
outreach and preparations, the seventh largest
amount among all states.
The state is pegging $3.5 million for
competitive grants to community groups and local
governments to do public outreach, as well as
$2.75 million for technical assistance and
post-census work, according to the Secretary of
State’s office, which oversees the state’s
count. The money was allocated by the
Legislature as part of the state budget.
“This is the first time in Massachusetts and
other states when an enormous amount of money is
being devoted to get a full count,” said Eva
Millona, who chairs the state’s Complete Count
Committee that is coordinating the outreach.
“It’s extremely important that we make these
investments, because the census is about power,
money and respect.”
Much of the money is going to cities, towns and
community organizations, she said, because they
have stronger ties and more credibility with
hard-to-count populations such as low-income
residents, immigrants, transient college
students, the elderly, and indigenous peoples.
Millona, who is also executive director of the
Massachusetts Immigrant Refugee Advocacy
Coalition, said the outreach is aimed at making
sure everyone is counted.
It’s a task complicated by misconceptions that
the information will be misused and fears of the
federal government in many immigrant
communities, she said.
In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates more
than 1 in 5 people in Massachusetts did not
self-respond to the 2010 census.
Big outreach
To be sure, spending on census outreach in
Massachusetts is dwarfed by more populous states
like Illinois, New York and California, which
are putting huge sums of money toward public
education.
California is spending more than any other state
— $187 million — and sending workers to knock on
doors as part of a mini-census ahead of the
nationwide count.
Illinois plans to spend $84.5 million, while
Washington is pledging $15.5 million to the
effort, according to the National Conference of
State Legislatures.
New York is pledging $20 million while New York
City, the nation’s most populous city, recently
committed to spending $40 million on census
preparations.
Texas, New Hampshire and Maine, by comparison,
are among about 20 states that haven’t allocated
any money specifically for census outreach.
For many states, their spending for 2020 is a
significant jump from past decades, including 10
years ago, when the recession restricted many
state budgets.
While the U.S. Census Bureau spends $500 million
on education and outreach ahead of the count,
the agency isn’t providing direct funding to
states.
The constitutionally mandated census is required
to count the country’s entire population every
10 years. It asks questions about race, marital
status and other topics.
But there’s a lot more at stake for state and
local governments than vital statistics.
High stakes
Census data determines funding formulas for the
next decade for federal spending on
infrastructure, health care, education and
affordable housing.
More than $1.5 trillion in funding for state and
local governments is parceled out according to
census data, according to Andrew Reamer, a
professor and researcher at the George
Washington Institute of Public Policy, who is
studying the census’ role in the distribution of
federal funds.
Medicare accounted for almost half of the
funding, more than $710 billion, according to
the research.
Reamer said the sizable expenditures are a safe
bet for the states making them, given the amount
of federal funding that’s on the table.
“From a taxpayer perspective, the return on that
investment could be multiple times what they are
spending,” he said. “They stand to get a lot in
return.”
In fiscal year 2017, Massachusetts received more
than $38.2 billion in federal funding that was
connected to census data, Reamer said, citing
his latest research.
The federal dollars went to everything from
transportation, health care and community
development block grants to affordable housing,
special education and school breakfast programs.
Besides guiding how federal money is
distributed, this year’s census also will
determine how many congressional seats each
state gets.
Massachusetts, for example, has nine
representatives in Congress, which could
increase or decrease depending on the count.
The state lost one congressional seat after the
2010 count, when its population — then estimated
at 6,547,629 — didn’t grow as fast as the
national average.
In 2018, the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate for
Massachusetts population was 6,902,149, a growth
of 5.41% in nine years.
Rhode Island — which stands to lose one of its
two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives —
is spending about $500,000 on census
preparations and outreach.
Nonprofit push
States that don’t devote money and resources to
census preparation risk under-counting their
population, and could risk losing federal
dollars to other states.
In New Hampshire, which received more than $3.7
billion in federal funds in fiscal 2016 based on
census data, preparations are being supported by
nonprofits that are concerned about a loss of
federal funding.
A coalition of nonprofits called the New
Hampshire Funders Forum has committed to hiring
a part-time consultant for census outreach.
“A lot of it is being done at the local level,”
said Ken Gallager, a planner with New
Hampshire’s Office of Strategic Initiatives who
heads the state’s Complete Count Committee.
“While it would be nice to have additional funds
for outreach, there’s a lot of people coming
together to do what they can with their own
resources to get the word out.”
Massachusetts has also set up local complete
count committees for outreach to officials and
community groups that can help ensure more
people are counted.
Concerns about undercounted populations were
stoked by efforts from the Trump administration
to add a citizenship question to the 2020
census. The move was ultimately blocked by the
U.S. Supreme Court but not before it raised
concerns that immigrants and their families —
even those living in the U.S. legally — would
avoid the count.
Wendy Underhill, director of elections and
redistricting for the National Conference of
State Legislatures, said the unprecedented
spending on census preparation underscores that
a lot is at stake.
“It’s unusual to have this much money pouring
into census outreach by states,” she said. “I
think it shows that the connection between the
census data and federal funding to the states is
clearer than it’s ever been. The states
understand that if they can get everyone
counted, more federal money will flow to them.”
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts
Statehouse for The Salem News and its newspapers
and websites.
State totals for census funding:
California: $187 million
Illinois: $84.5 million
New York: $20 million
Washington: $15.5 million
New Jersey: $9 million
Oregon: $7.7 million
Massachusetts: $6.25
million
Colorado: $6 million
Maryland: $5 million
Nevada: $5 million
Pennsylvania: $4 million
Georgia: $3.8 million
New Mexico: $3.5 million
Minnesota: $2.2 million
North Carolina: $1.5 million
Virginia: $1.5 million
Alabama: $1.24 million
Utah: $1 million
North Dakota: $1 million
Wisconsin: $1 million
Alaska: $600,000
Missouri: $501,650
Rhode Island: $500,000
Connecticut: $500,000
Michigan: $500,000
Montana: $100,000
Source: National Conference of State
Legislatures
|
| |
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Citizens for Limited Taxation ▪
PO Box 1147 ▪ Marblehead, MA 01945
▪ (781) 639-9709
BACK TO CLT
HOMEPAGE
|
