 |
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
Sunday, February 2, 2020
"Radical"
'Net-Zero'
steamrolled through Senate
Jump directly
to CLT's Commentary on the News
|
Environmental and climate activists are celebrating the
growing momentum behind a net-zero carbon emissions future,
but small business advocates are throwing up a caution flag.
Senate Democrats held a private caucus for more than two
hours Wednesday ahead of debate on Thursday on a three-bill
package anchored around the goal of reaching net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050. The bills leave many of the details
surrounding methods to reach that goal up to the executive
branch, and the local chapter of the National Federation of
Independent Business, which has 5,000 small business members
in Massachusetts, says lawmakers are not properly
considering financial impacts on small employers, consumers
and motorists.
"Get ready for much higher energy bills, fuel prices, more
expensive products, and limits on what consumers can buy or
install in their homes or what companies can sell," Chris
Carlozzi, NFIB state director, said in a statement. "There
seems to be no balance or consideration of the economic harm
these carbon taxes would cause to household budgets or small
businesses' bottom lines, especially in the areas of
construction, transportation, manufacturing or heating and
cooling." ...
Higher taxes on gasoline are under serious consideration in
the House as part of a broad plan to boost transportation
funds and improve public transit. And Gov. Charlie Baker is
trying to hold together a coalition of governors to launch
Northeast and mid-Atlantic states into a regional carbon
reduction compact targeting transportation, which could also
raise gas prices.
State House News Service
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
NFIB: Net-Zero Emissions Will Push Consumer, Biz Costs
Higher
As
Gov. Charlie Baker tries to hold together a regional compact
to reduce emissions from 50 million vehicles, it appears
Democratic legislative leaders may need to assemble a two
thirds majority in both branches if they plan to push
through a gas tax increase as a cornerstone of their
still-developing transportation investment bill.
The
11-state Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI) could cause
gas prices to rise by 5 to 17 cents per gallon, but Baker
feels the regional approach is the best way to cut
transportation emissions because it would force the industry
to buy carbon allowances, which Baker says would incentivize
automakers and fuel suppliers to invest in clean vehicles,
charging stations and alternative fuels rather than
conducting business as usual.
Just raising the state gas tax won't create a reason for the
auto and gas industry to address carbon emissions or
greenhouse gas emissions, the governor said during a WGBH
radio interview last week.
"They just pass it through to the customer and the customer
pays it," Baker said during his "Ask the Governor" segment
on Jan. 22.
"Putting a tax on something is not the same as creating a
cap and invest program," Baker said. Pressed twice by host
James Braude on whether he would veto a gas tax increase,
Baker, who has previously expressed his opposition to a gas
tax hike, finally said, "If that's all it was, yeah."
Baker added, "We need to create some incentives for people
to change in a big way on the supply side."
The
governor was even more direct in an interview on WEEI
Thursday morning: "I don't support a gas tax, period. And if
the Legislature sends us one we will send it back to them.
Is that clear enough?" ...
"It
would be very difficult to get both approved at the same
time," Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen
Theoharides told Boston Globe columnist Shirley Leung
recently. "I worry if we try to do both at the same time we
don't get TCI."
Some state legislators are likely feeling uneasy about
passing a large gas tax increase during an election year,
just as some Northeast and mid-Atlantic governors weighing
TCI are expressing reservations about that compact's impact
on gas prices.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Baker Would Veto Gas Tax Hike “If That’s All It Was”
Theoharides: TCI and Gas Tax Approval Would be "Very
Difficult"
Thursday is climate policy day in the Massachusetts Senate,
where lawmakers are planning to debate and amend a suite of
bills that address carbon emissions reduction, energy
efficiency and electric vehicles.
The
starting point, a trio of bills (S 2476/S 2477/S 2478)
presented last week by Senate leadership as a "comprehensive
plan for the state." The bills would require an all-electric
MBTA bus fleet by 2040, institute carbon-pricing mechanisms
for transportation, housing and commercial buildings, and
set a series of five-year greenhouse gas emissions reduction
requirements, culminating in net-zero statewide emissions in
2050.
Senators have proposed 151 ways to amend the three bills,
touching on everything from clean energy procurement to used
car rebates and worker safety.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Senate Prepares 151 Amendments on Climate Policy Bills
Emitting carbon would come with a new price in Massachusetts
and the state would embark on a more aggressive timeline for
reducing its greenhouse gas emissions under a bill that
overwhelmingly passed the state Senate Thursday night.
Aimed at bolstering the state's response to the
international challenge of climate change, the bill calls
for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, an acceleration
beyond the target spelled out in current law. It sets
deadlines for the state to impose carbon-pricing mechanisms
for transportation, commercial buildings and homes, but
leaves the critical specifics up to the executive branch.
Sen. Michael Barrett, the Senate chair of the
Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee, said the
bill's features are "precedent-setting." He said it
establishes an ambitious but not unreasonable approach.
Barrett told the News Service there was a "surprising amount
of underlying consensus" on the legislation and not much
disagreement among the senators.
"People wanted to get radical, they wanted to get dramatic,
and I think we gave them the bill they were looking for," he
said after the Senate adjourned Thursday night.
The
bill (S 2477) cleared the Senate on a 36-2 vote. The
legislation is one piece of a trio of climate-related bills
senators passed, along with others addressing energy
efficiency and electric vehicles.
The
electric vehicles bill (S 2476) 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. It also makes
permanent an existing rebate program for consumers buying
electric cars.
The
energy efficiency bill (S 2478), which passed on a 35-2
vote, sets efficiency standards for a range of products,
including new faucets and showerheads. According to
Environment Massachusetts, the standards are projected to
reduce utility bills by $282 million in 2035 and, by that
same year, reduce the state's carbon annual emissions by
271,000 metric tons, the equivalent of taking 57,000 cars
off the road.
"Together the three really do constitute an historic new
moment in the fight against climate change," Barrett said on
the Senate floor. "This does lift the state to a new level
in combating global warming."
Republican Sens. Dean Tran and Ryan Fattman, representing
half of the diminished Senate Republican caucus, voted
against each bill.
The
bills now move to the House for its consideration....
Senators also agreed to an amendment from Sen. Marc Pacheco
adding an emergency preamble to the bill and stating that
its purpose is "to drastically lower our greenhouse gas
emissions to confront our world and Commonwealth's climate
emergency." ...
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr's efforts to add in provisions
that would inform consumers of cost impacts from carbon
pricing were ultimately unsuccessful.
State House News Service
Friday, January 31, 2020
Senate Agrees to Sharp Shift in State Climate Policies
"People Want to Get Radical," Energy Chair Says
Senate Democrats on Thursday turned down an effort to send a
sweeping package of climate policy bills back into
committee, after the top Republican senator complained that
cost estimates are missing from the plans.
The
Senate voted 33-4 along party lines to reject a proposal
from Minority Leader Bruce Tarr to recommit the central bill
in the bundle (S 2477) to the Senate Ways and Means
Committee for redrafting and a public hearing.
During introductory debate on the floor, Tarr stressed the
importance of addressing the "bipartisan issue" of climate
change. He argued, though, that the 123 amendments filed
indicate the bill is missing several important components
such as mandating cost estimates from market-based emissions
reduction mechanisms and sufficient protections for low- and
moderate-income families that may be affected if and when
the executive branch delivers on the bill's carbon pricing
requirements.
Tarr asked that the committee "take a few days" to add
language addressing those points, host a public hearing to
weigh testimony, and then bring the bill back to the
Senate....
"What is this going to cost?" Tarr asked after the motion
was rejected. "What is it going to cost the consumer?
Because we know that many household budgets are already
strained, are already constrained by limited resources." ...
Sen. Michael Barrett, who co-chairs the [Telecommunications,
Utilities and Energy] Committee, told his colleagues that
the legislation setting a net-zero carbon emissions target
for 2050 with clear benchmarks can set a worldwide model for
how to "bring climate change to a standstill and begin to
reverse its horrible effects."
State House News Service
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Tarr: Cost Estimates Missing from Climate Policy Package
Senators passed a trio of climate bills on Thursday,
approving legislation addressing carbon pricing and emission
reductions (S 2477), electric vehicles (S 2476) and
appliance efficiency standards (S 2478).
Each bill passed with only two dissenting votes, from
Republican Sens. Ryan Fattman and Dean Tran.
Sen. Michael Barrett, the Senate chair of the
Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy Committee told the
News Service that there was a "surprising amount of
underlying consensus" behind the bills.
Among other policies, the legislation calls for the MBTA to
fully electrify its bus fleet by 2040 and for the state to
put carbon-pricing mechanisms in place for the
transportation sector by 2022, for commercial buildings by
2025, and for residential buildings by 2030.
State House News Service
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Senate Session - Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020
By Katie Lannan
Charlie Baker, the fake Republican better known as Tall
Deval, is determined to impose his unconstitutional new
double gasoline tax on the working people of Massachusetts,
and we have to let him know that he will pay a price for
this outrage.
The
problem is, he’s not up for re-election for almost three
years, so we have to get his attention in another way — by
defeating all of his hacks running for anything, starting
with the Republican state committee elections March 3.
Only Republicans and independents who take a GOP ballot on
Super Tuesday can vote, and there’s another reason to go out
— to support President Trump, and to give the back of your
hand to Bill Weld, another turncoat RINO governor running
for president, sort of.
It’s going to be a very conservative turnout on the
Republican side — all the Dems will be busy voting for
Bolshevik Bernie — so it should be easy to send Tall Deval a
message, by knocking off all his hacks on a state or
campaign payroll.
Let’s go down the list....
If
most or all of these Tall Deval hacks are defeated on Super
Tuesday, it will send a message — especially if the new
state committee immediately votes, say, 80-0 to denounce the
Republican turncoat Baker for betraying his constituents.
I’m
sure some of these overpaid hacks aren’t bad people. But if
it comes down a choice between their political futures and
my wallet, well, I guess you know which side I’m on. How
about you?
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 31, 2019
Charlie Baker leaves taxpayers gassed
By Howie Carr
It
was already well established coming into the week where
legislative leaders stood on Baker's commitment to make
Massachusetts a net-zero carbon emission state by 2050.
The
Senate made sure Thursday to do its part to lock that in.
The
Senate passed a trio of climate bills to set the 2050
emission reduction requirement and direct the administration
to pursue carbon pricing mechanisms for the transportation
and building sectors. The package also looks at electrifying
the MBTA bus fleet and putting efficiency standards on
products and appliances.
"People wanted to get radical, they wanted to get dramatic,
and I think we gave them the bill they were looking for,"
Sen. Michael Barrett said after the Senate debate.
The
bills, however, would not address the state's preparedness
for the effects of climate change, as Speaker DeLeo's "Green
Works" bill or the governor's $1 billion plan would. And in
the course of the debate, Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr
raised the real, if not entirely answerable, question about
what widespread carbon pricing would cost residents.
"What would this do?" read a sign the Gloucester Republican
held up in the chamber.
What would it do, indeed?
Without knowing what types of programs the Baker
administration or future administrations would implement to
comply with the law, a full accounting of the side effects
and price tag is difficult. But Chris Carlozzi of the NFIB
took a stab anyway: "Get ready for much higher energy bills,
fuel prices, more expensive products, and limits on what
consumers can buy or install in their homes or what
companies can sell."
State House News Service
Friday, January 31, 2020
Weekly Roundup - Tale of Two Committees
By Matt Murphy
In
six months, most of the thousands of bills competing for
attention on Beacon Hill will die with the end of formal
sessions for the two-year cycle. The timeline underscores
the importance of Wednesday's biennial deadline for most
joint legislative committees to make some kind of
determination on bills in their custody. Under Joint Rule
10, Feb. 5 - the first Wednesday in February of the second
annual session of the General Court - is the deadline for
reporting on bills referred to committees before the first
day of the second annual session (Jan. 1, 2020).
Most joint committees must also report within 30 days on all
matters referred to them on and after the first day of the
second annual session (Jan. 1, 2020). Bill supporters and
opponents are fiercely competing for "ought to pass" and
"ought not to pass" recommendations. While bills that
receive favorable recommendations may still become bottled
up at another legislative chokepoint, sponsors of bills that
get a negative recommendation or are referred for further
study are probably out of options for success this cycle.
The
House is planning to hold a formal session Wednesday, but
leadership did not detail what representatives will be asked
to consider, leaving open the possibility that the House
could bring to the floor any number of bills -- including
the revenue-raising transportation bill House leaders have
been working for months to craft. The speaker's office told
representatives to be prepared to consider items on the
House calendar and anything sent over by the Senate.
State House News Service
Friday, January 31, 2020
Advances - Week of Feb. 2, 2020
Renewed efforts to turn Massachusetts into a haven for
illegal immigrants took center stage on Beacon Hill
recently.
The
Legislature’s Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland
Security hosted a packed hearing Jan. 24, on a bill that
would limit how local police and federal immigration
officials interact over immigration-related matters.
Rep. Ruth Balser, a Newton Democrat and the bill’s
co-sponsor, said while the state Legislature cannot fix
national immigration policy, there are steps it can take to
make Massachusetts a “safe and welcoming place” for
immigrants.
Most people would likely assume she was referring to
immigrants who entered this country legally. However, her
concern was reserved for those who flout our immigration
laws and then expect our legal system to shield them from
the consequences of that illegal act.
The
state’s Republican Party rightfully took issue with that
skewed view. In a written statement, it said the bill would
“protect those who have already broken the law by crossing
our borders illegally.”
The
Senate backed similar language contained in a budget
amendment by Sen. Jamie Eldridge in the last legislative
session.
But
that bid received considerable pushback. Gov. Charlie Baker,
who doesn’t oppose communities adopting sanctuary policies,
nonetheless threatened to veto any sanctuary state bill. “We
did not feel that that would enhance the quality of public
safety in the commonwealth,” Baker stated at the time.
The
Acton Democrat’s amendment stalled in the House....
So,
it’s easy to see why most illegals have little to fear from
federal, state or local authorities, But we shouldn’t
endorse the sorry state [of] our immigration enforcement
system by codifying it with a legislative seal of approval.
A Boston Herald editorial
Saturday, February 1, 2020
Don’t dilute state’s already lax immigration enforcement
|
|
Chip Ford's CLT
Commentary
You should
have received CLT's annual membership renewal mailing
for 2020 in your mailbox at home this week, or will in
the next few days — if you
are a CLT member-in-good-standing by having contributed
anything over the past two years.
If you
don't receive that mailing, then you are not
a member-in-good-standing; you're a long-lapsed
member. You can change that status by renewing
your membership immediately by sending your check to the
address below, and at the top and bottom of this and all
CLT Updates, or by making your contribution by credit
card
here, and now.
CLT
PO Box 1147
Marblehead, MA 01945-5147
The response
to this mailing will immediately determine whether or
not CLT can and will continue on in 2020, and for how
long. We hope you will support keeping it
informing and fighting for you and all taxpayers.
That's entirely your choice. Without your support
and that of many others there would never have been a
Citizens for Limited Taxation, and there won't be.
The State
House News Service reported on Thursday:
"As
Gov. Charlie Baker tries to hold together a regional compact
to reduce emissions from 50 million vehicles, it appears
Democratic legislative leaders may need to assemble a two
thirds majority in both branches if they plan to push
through a gas tax increase as a cornerstone of their
still-developing transportation investment bill."
The
Gov responded:
"I
don't support a gas tax, period. And if the
Legislature sends us one we will send it back to
them. Is that clear enough?"
Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides
added:
"It
would be very difficult to get both approved at the
same time. I worry if we try to do both at the same time we
don't get TCI."
What should be
"clear enough" to Gov. Baker is that Republicans
currently hold 4 of the 40 seats in the state Senate,
and 30 of the 160 seats in the state House of
Representatives. When and if Charlie Baker ever
sends the Legislature's expected gas tax hike back, does
anyone expect his veto won't be easily overridden by the
vast Democrat majority without breaking a sweat?
What a silly, feckless and idle threat. If House
Speaker-for-Life Bob DeLeo wants a gas tax, a gas tax it
will be.
The good news
is that "Baker's Boondoggle," his multi-state
Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI), is seemingly
losing momentum. According to our allies in the
Anti-TCI multi-state coalition during last Monday's
weekly conference call, there is very-little-to-no
interest among governors in many of the other states:
None in New Hampshire; little in Maine, Vermont,
Connecticut, New York, and likely elsewhere. Only
the governor of Rhode Island is supportive, but that
state's House Speaker is opposed. Reaching Baker's
"critical mass" of states appears to be slipping away,
though it's still too early to predict TCI's defeat.
On Friday the
State House News Service reported:
"Sen. Michael Barrett, the
Senate chair of the Telecommunications, Utilities
and Energy Committee, said the bill's features are
'precedent-setting.' He said it establishes an
ambitious but not unreasonable approach.
"Barrett told the News Service
there was a 'surprising amount of underlying
consensus' on the legislation and not much
disagreement among the senators.
"'People wanted to get radical,
they wanted to get dramatic, and I think we gave
them the bill they were looking for,' he said after
the Senate adjourned Thursday night."
On Thursday
the trifecta of three "Net-Zero" "climate change" bills were passed
by a vote of 36-2 (S-2477) and 35-2 (S-2476 and S-2478) in the Senate. All the
Republicans could muster to oppose them was two
— two Republican
votes:
Sens. Ryan Fattman and Dean Tran. The other half
of the Senate Republican caucus
—
the other two, Sens. Bruce Tarr and Patrick O’Connor
—
voted in favor of all three.
Celebrating after the vote, Sen. Michael Barrett added:
"Together the three really do constitute an historic
new moment in the fight against climate change. This
does lift the state to a new level in combating
global warming."
Schedule the
moving company truck —
"Net-Zero" is in the works, steamrolled through the
Senate. If you made a phone call to your state
senator or sent an e-mail after our request last
Wednesday it was obviously ignored. (If you didn't
bother, then you'll likely get what you have coming and
can't complain.)
CLT ally Chris Carlozzi,
state director of the National Federation of Independent
Businesses, fired off a dire warning of "Net-Zero"
consequences:
"Get
ready for much higher energy bills, fuel prices,
more expensive products, and limits on what
consumers can buy or install in their homes or what
companies can sell. There seems to be no balance or
consideration of the economic harm these carbon
taxes would cause to household budgets or small
businesses' bottom lines, especially in the areas of
construction, transportation, manufacturing or
heating and cooling."
"Net-Zero"
will even create a new hackorama (more "good jobs at
good wages" for the well-connected) at an initial annual
cost of $5 million: the "Climate Policy
Commission." Nobody knows what it will do and
nobody ever will. It's workings and budget are to
be a closely-held secret.
During the
debate, Senate minority lead Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester)
challenged this:
"It
seems to me if we're going to talk about
independence, you should have to post what you're
doing. I would think if we're going to spend $5
million, they have an obligation to publish and post
everything they do. I would further suggest that if
the [Administrative Procedure Act] is going to cover
it, why do we need this sentence to begin with? I
appreciate the desire for consistency, but I hope we
are not heading in the direction of consistently not
requiring publishing or posting. I don't understand
how requiring them to publish and post removes
independence. It just means we have to know about
it."
By a roll call
vote of 29-8, Tarr Amendent #93 (Climate Policy
Commission) was rejected. Next came Tarr Amendment
#96 (Ratepayer Representation). Sen. Tarr argued:
"If
we're going to have a new commission and a new
bureaucracy, ought it not have some representation
from the people who directly pay the rate? There are
a whole lot of people on this commission, but what
it also ought to be is a couple of folks of people
who stand in the shoes of people who are paying the
bills."
Even this
amendment was rejected as well.
Earlier in the
debate Sen. Tarr questioned the cost of "Net-Zero" but
answers were not forthcoming. He questioned why it
wasn't subject to the usual process with public hearings
and a cost estimate from the House Ways & Means
Committee:
"I
respectfully move that the bill be recommitted to
the Committee on Ways and Means in the hope we can
capture that opportunity and in the hope we can move
forward together in the way we should. I make that
motion with full respect for everyone who has worked
to get us here so far. My hope is we take that
knowledge and supercharge it, not try to go piece by
piece, but come out with a bill that includes major
components that it now does not have."
His request
that the bill(s) be recommitted to the Ways & Means
Committee for a cost estimate also was defeated.
He further
argued:
"What is this going to cost?
What is it going to cost the consumer because we
know that many household budgets are already
strained, are already constrained by limited
resources. We as a state government ... are going to
ask them to make economic sacrifice. I will be the
first to tell you there may be benefits as well ...
but in the end, to be responsible lawmakers, we have
to ask the question what is this going to cost.
What does this do? If we pass this bill, what
does it do?
"In order to put that into
context, we need a couple more figures. The first is
the number of our carbon emissions currently
compared to the United States. It's 1.2 percent. So
let's think about that. If we want to look at what
we contribute to global emissions, it's about 0.12
percent. . . ."
Then came
Tarr's Amendment #109 (Accounting of Emissions Avoided,
Reduced or Eliminated). Sen. Tarr asserted:
"At the
outset of this process, I said we would be asking
important questions. One of the important questions
we have to continue to ask is, 'what does it cost?'
You would think we wouldn't have to ask it in this
way. This amendment would require that, as all of
these bureaucracies are looking at what we're doing
and they're calculating how much reduction of carbon
we've made, they look at what the unit cost of that
reduction is so we can understand the cost
effectiveness of what we're doing. It seems like a
pretty reasonable and responsible question to ask."
This amendment
also was rejected.
Despite so
much intractable rejection of his eloquent oratory, at
the end of the day Sen. Tarr nonetheless voted to pass
"Net-Zero," along with Republican Sen. Patrick O'Connor.
Such typical "go-along-to-get-along" behavior is not
unexpected.
Of the entire
state Senate, only Republicans Sens. Ryan Fattman and
Dean Tran stood for their constituents' financial
welfare and voted against "Net-Zero."
Now it goes to
the House of Representatives, which is currently
consumed with a bill to make Massachusetts a "Sanctuary
State" for illegal aliens.
|
 |
 |
|
Chip Ford
Executive Director |
|
|
|
|
|
State House
News Service
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
NFIB: Net-Zero Emissions Will Push Consumer, Biz
Costs Higher
By Michael P. Norton
Environmental and climate
activists are celebrating the growing momentum
behind a net-zero carbon emissions future, but
small business advocates are throwing up a
caution flag.
Senate Democrats held a private caucus for more
than two hours Wednesday ahead of debate on
Thursday on a three-bill package anchored around
the goal of reaching net-zero carbon emissions
by 2050. The bills leave many of the details
surrounding methods to reach that goal up to the
executive branch, and the local chapter of the
National Federation of Independent Business,
which has 5,000 small business members in
Massachusetts, says lawmakers are not properly
considering financial impacts on small
employers, consumers and motorists.
"Get ready for much higher energy bills, fuel
prices, more expensive products, and limits on
what consumers can buy or install in their homes
or what companies can sell," Chris Carlozzi,
NFIB state director, said in a statement. "There
seems to be no balance or consideration of the
economic harm these carbon taxes would cause to
household budgets or small businesses' bottom
lines, especially in the areas of construction,
transportation, manufacturing or heating and
cooling."
The bills call for an electric MBTA bus fleet by
2040, carbon-pricing mechanisms for
transportation, homes and commercial buildings,
and a series of greenhouse gas emissions
reduction requirements that ramp up to net-zero
emissions in 2050. Senate President Karen Spilka
described the bills as a "comprehensive plan for
the state" to respond to an international issue:
global climate change.
Higher taxes on gasoline are under serious
consideration in the House as part of a broad
plan to boost transportation funds and improve
public transit. And Gov. Charlie Baker is trying
to hold together a coalition of governors to
launch Northeast and mid-Atlantic states into a
regional carbon reduction compact targeting
transportation, which could also raise gas
prices.
State House
News Service
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Baker Would Veto Gas Tax Hike “If That’s All It
Was”
Theoharides: TCI and Gas Tax Approval Would be
"Very Difficult"
By Michael P. Norton
As Gov. Charlie Baker tries to
hold together a regional compact to reduce
emissions from 50 million vehicles, it appears
Democratic legislative leaders may need to
assemble a two thirds majority in both branches
if they plan to push through a gas tax increase
as a cornerstone of their still-developing
transportation investment bill.
The 11-state Transportation Climate Initiative
(TCI) could cause gas prices to rise by 5 to 17
cents per gallon, but Baker feels the regional
approach is the best way to cut transportation
emissions because it would force the industry to
buy carbon allowances, which Baker says would
incentivize automakers and fuel suppliers to
invest in clean vehicles, charging stations and
alternative fuels rather than conducting
business as usual.
Just raising the state gas tax won't create a
reason for the auto and gas industry to address
carbon emissions or greenhouse gas emissions,
the governor said during a WGBH radio interview
last week.
"They just pass it through to the customer and
the customer pays it," Baker said during his
"Ask the Governor" segment on Jan. 22.
"Putting a tax on something is not the same as
creating a cap and invest program," Baker said.
Pressed twice by host James Braude on whether he
would veto a gas tax increase, Baker, who has
previously expressed his opposition to a gas tax
hike, finally said, "If that's all it was,
yeah."
Baker added, "We need to create some incentives
for people to change in a big way on the supply
side."
The governor was even more direct in an
interview on WEEI Thursday morning: "I don't
support a gas tax, period. And if the
Legislature sends us one we will send it back to
them. Is that clear enough?"
Gas price impacts, whether from the regional
compact or a state gas tax increase, appear to
be shaping up as a major factor in the
development, over months now, of a House
transportation revenue bill. House Speaker
Robert DeLeo wants to put that bill before the
House by April at the latest.
A top Baker aide recently commented on the
interplay between TCI and gax tax increases.
"It would be very difficult to get both approved
at the same time," Energy and Environmental
Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides told
Boston Globe columnist Shirley Leung recently.
"I worry if we try to do both at the same time
we don't get TCI."
Some state legislators are likely feeling uneasy
about passing a large gas tax increase during an
election year, just as some Northeast and
mid-Atlantic governors weighing TCI are
expressing reservations about that compact's
impact on gas prices.
Support or opposition to raising the gas tax
could emerge as an issue among the candidates
competing in five special legislative elections
that voters are set to decide in March.
There are three vacancies in the House, where
Democrats hold 125 seats, 31 districts are
represented by Republicans, and one member is an
independent. The Senate has two vacancies, both
in districts recently represented by
Republicans. Senate Democrats currently
outnumber Republicans by a 34-4 margin.
State House
News Service
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Senate Prepares 151 Amendments on Climate Policy
Bills
By Colin A. Young
Thursday is climate policy day in
the Massachusetts Senate, where lawmakers are
planning to debate and amend a suite of bills
that address carbon emissions reduction, energy
efficiency and electric vehicles.
The starting point, a trio of bills (S 2476/S
2477/S 2478) presented last week by Senate
leadership as a "comprehensive plan for the
state." The bills would require an all-electric
MBTA bus fleet by 2040, institute carbon-pricing
mechanisms for transportation, housing and
commercial buildings, and set a series of
five-year greenhouse gas emissions reduction
requirements, culminating in net-zero statewide
emissions in 2050.
Senators have proposed 151 ways to amend the
three bills, touching on everything from clean
energy procurement to used car rebates and
worker safety.
On the offshore wind front, Sen. Julian Cyr of
Cape Cod filed an amendment that would direct
the Department of Energy Resources to look into
the necessity and feasibility of a third
1,600-megawatt wind energy procurement. And
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr is proposing to
specifically authorize the state to solicit
proposals for an expandable transmission network
to get that wind power to shore.
Tarr also filed an amendment with bipartisan
support that would incorporate natural climate
solutions -- actions that intend to protect,
restore, and better manage natural and working
lands like forests, farms and wetlands to reduce
and remove carbon emissions -- as part of the
effort to get to net-zero emissions, the Nature
Conservancy said.
Berkshires Sen. Adam Hinds filed an amendment to
require DOER to "establish and maintain an
incentive program supporting the installation of
energy storage systems ... on customer premises"
by the start of next year, and another to
require the Department of Transportation to
install electric vehicle charging stations for
public use at all Mass. Turnpike service plazas
by the end of 2022.
State House News
Service
Friday, January 31, 2020
Senate Agrees to Sharp Shift in State Climate
Policies
"People Want to Get Radical," Energy Chair Says
By Katie Lannan
Emitting carbon would come with a
new price in Massachusetts and the state would
embark on a more aggressive timeline for
reducing its greenhouse gas emissions under a
bill that overwhelmingly passed the state Senate
Thursday night.
Aimed at bolstering the state's response to the
international challenge of climate change, the
bill calls for net-zero carbon emissions by
2050, an acceleration beyond the target spelled
out in current law. It sets deadlines for the
state to impose carbon-pricing mechanisms for
transportation, commercial buildings and homes,
but leaves the critical specifics up to the
executive branch.
Sen. Michael Barrett, the Senate chair of the
Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy
Committee, said the bill's features are
"precedent-setting." He said it establishes an
ambitious but not unreasonable approach.
Barrett told the News Service there was a
"surprising amount of underlying consensus" on
the legislation and not much disagreement among
the senators.
"People wanted to get radical, they wanted to
get dramatic, and I think we gave them the bill
they were looking for," he said after the Senate
adjourned Thursday night.
The bill (S 2477) cleared the Senate on a 36-2
vote. The legislation is one piece of a trio of
climate-related bills senators passed, along
with others addressing energy efficiency and
electric vehicles.
The electric vehicles bill (S 2476) 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. It also makes permanent
an existing rebate program for consumers buying
electric cars.
The energy efficiency bill (S 2478), which
passed on a 35-2 vote, sets efficiency standards
for a range of products, including new faucets
and showerheads. According to Environment
Massachusetts, the standards are projected to
reduce utility bills by $282 million in 2035
and, by that same year, reduce the state's
carbon annual emissions by 271,000 metric tons,
the equivalent of taking 57,000 cars off the
road.
"Together the three really do constitute an
historic new moment in the fight against climate
change," Barrett said on the Senate floor. "This
does lift the state to a new level in combating
global warming."
Republican Sens. Dean Tran and Ryan Fattman,
representing half of the diminished Senate
Republican caucus, voted against each bill.
The bills now move to the House for its
consideration. Gov. Charlie Baker and House
Speaker Robert DeLeo have each said they want
the state to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050,
but it's unclear if they'd be on board with the
Senate's exact approach.
Baker's energy secretary, Kathleen Theoharides,
said last week that she plans to issue a letter
of determination soon to formally establish a
policy of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by
2050.
Jacob Stern, the deputy director of the Sierra
Club Massachusetts chapter, said the Senate bill
will help reduce carbon pollution but that his
group was "disappointed that despite broad
support from the advocacy community, there
wasn't a commitment to transition the state to
100% clean, renewable electricity in the final
legislation."
"The responsibility to act now falls to the
Massachusetts House of Representatives," Stern
said.
Sean Garren, the northeast senior director of
Vote Solar, said his organization looks forward
"to working with House leaders to ensure the
final bill helps to maximize opportunities for
the expansion of solar power as a critical part
of the Commonwealth's response to the climate
crisis while reclaiming our leadership on
renewable energy."
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.
The Senate bill would require more regular
check-ins, with interim targets every five years
including a 2030 limit of at least 50 percent
below 1990 levels. On carbon-pricing, it calls
for a market-based compliance mechanism to be in
place for the transportation sector by 2022, for
commercial buildings by 2025, and for
residential buildings by 2030.
The bill also establishes a Climate Policy
Commission, modeled after the state's Health
Policy Commission, to serve as an independent
watchdog over government's response to climate
change, and it creates the first mission
statement for the Department of Public
Utilities, requiring it to prioritize safety,
security, reliability of service, affordability,
equity and emissions reductions.
It increases membership on the Board of Building
Regulation and Standards, calls for the
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,
and requires that solar energy incentive
programs set aside a portion of future
allocations for low-income neighborhoods.
Senators filed more than 120 amendments to the
bill and spent several hours working through
them. Proposals to consider the needs of rural
communities and low-income households in
emission reductions efforts were among those
adopted, as was a Sen. Paul Feeney amendment
creating a training program to teach new skills
to workers who are displaced by emissions
reduction and green technology advancements.
Feeney said such a program will ensure that
workers from the fossil fuel industry won't be
"breathing clean air while standing in the
unemployment line."
On the topic of rural communities, Sen. Jo
Comerford of Northampton said a carbon price
should not disproportionately burden areas that
lack access to public transportation and rely on
driving.
Senators also agreed to an amendment from Sen.
Marc Pacheco adding an emergency preamble to the
bill and stating that its purpose is "to
drastically lower our greenhouse gas emissions
to confront our world and Commonwealth's climate
emergency."
Many of the amendments were withdrawn by their
sponsors without a vote. Sen. Eric Lesser, as he
withdrew an amendment regarding home energy
audits, said he understood the Senate at this
point was "not getting into a lot of specifics
about how we will reach that 2050 goal."
Minority Leader Bruce Tarr's efforts to add in
provisions that would inform consumers of cost
impacts from carbon pricing were ultimately
unsuccessful.
State House
News Service
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Tarr: Cost Estimates Missing from Climate Policy
Package
By Chris Lisinski and Colin A. Young
Senate Democrats on Thursday
turned down an effort to send a sweeping package
of climate policy bills back into committee,
after the top Republican senator complained that
cost estimates are missing from the plans.
The Senate voted 33-4 along party lines to
reject a proposal from Minority Leader Bruce
Tarr to recommit the central bill in the bundle
(S 2477) to the Senate Ways and Means Committee
for redrafting and a public hearing.
During introductory debate on the floor, Tarr
stressed the importance of addressing the
"bipartisan issue" of climate change. He argued,
though, that the 123 amendments filed indicate
the bill is missing several important components
such as mandating cost estimates from
market-based emissions reduction mechanisms and
sufficient protections for low- and
moderate-income families that may be affected if
and when the executive branch delivers on the
bill's carbon pricing requirements.
Tarr asked that the committee "take a few days"
to add language addressing those points, host a
public hearing to weigh testimony, and then
bring the bill back to the Senate.
Ways and Means Committee Chair Michael Rodrigues
responded that the committee built the
legislation based on several other bills that
had already been heard and advanced by the Joint
Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and
Energy (TUE).
"What is this going to cost?" Tarr asked after
the motion was rejected. "What is it going to
cost the consumer? Because we know that many
household budgets are already strained, are
already constrained by limited resources."
Tarr outlined the things he and other Senate
Republicans plan to focus on during Thursday's
debate. Sen. Marc Pacheco then rose and said
that he agrees with Tarr that the bill can be
improved upon through floor amendments.
"There are ways in which we can improve this
bill that hits the floor and come out of this
debate, hopefully tonight, with a bill that will
be the best bill in the country," Pacheco said.
"Because we can do that, believe it or not, we
can come out of here tonight with a bill that
will be a landmark piece of legislation, the
best climate bill enacted into law in the United
States of America."
Sen. Michael Barrett, who co-chairs the TUE
Committee, told his colleagues that the
legislation setting a net-zero carbon emissions
target for 2050 with clear benchmarks can set a
worldwide model for how to "bring climate change
to a standstill and begin to reverse its
horrible effects."
The Boston
Herald
Friday, January 31, 2019
Charlie Baker leaves taxpayers gassed
By Howie Carr
Charlie Baker, the fake
Republican better known as Tall Deval, is
determined to impose his unconstitutional new
double gasoline tax on the working people of
Massachusetts, and we have to let him know that
he will pay a price for this outrage.
The problem is, he’s not up for re-election for
almost three years, so we have to get his
attention in another way — by defeating all of
his hacks running for anything, starting with
the Republican state committee elections March
3.
Only Republicans and independents who take a GOP
ballot on Super Tuesday can vote, and there’s
another reason to go out — to support President
Trump, and to give the back of your hand to Bill
Weld, another turncoat RINO governor running for
president, sort of.
It’s going to be a very conservative turnout on
the Republican side — all the Dems will be busy
voting for Bolshevik Bernie — so it should be
easy to send Tall Deval a message, by knocking
off all his hacks on a state or campaign
payroll.
Let’s go down the list. I’m sure some of these
payroll patriots are decent enough people, but
so what? We’re decent people too — why do we
have to pay billions more to support the
hackerama through Tall Deval’s pet TCI, which is
nothing but a new 17-cent-per-gallon TAX on the
productive citizens of the Commonwealth.
There are 80 members of the state Committee, 40
men and 40 women, one each for all of the
state’s 40 Senate districts.
You want to make sure you are voting for people
who will try to stop Baker’s Folly. Check out
the social media of the candidates in your
Senate district.
For instance, incumbent Matt Sisk of
Braintree has prominently posted on his
Facebook page: No Taxation Without
Representation. In other words, he’s giving Tall
Deval the finger. Those are the kind of
candidates you want to vote for. Make them all
go on the record.
Ask them all, whose side are you on, the
taxpayers or the layabouts? If you’re not part
of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
No Taxation Without Representation.
Just make sure you don’t vote for anybody who
owes his or her hack job to Baker or Lt. Gov.
Karyn Polito. Those tax-fattened hyenas want to
steal your money. If they “work” for Baker,
they’re trying to rob you, period, no matter
what they may tell you now before the election.
Here’s the list of those to vote against, to
send Baker a message:
Laurie Myers of Chelmsford is the executive
director of the Sex Offender Registry Board,
making $108,499 a year. Vote for Catherine G.
White of Lexington, who is not a Tall Deval
hack.
Angela Davis of Foxboro, assistant
undersecretary for law enforcement & criminal
justice, $128,874 a year. Vote for Janet M.
Lonergan-Spinney of Foxboro, who does not
have her snout in the public trough.
William McKinney of Dedham, director of Mass.
Department of Labor Standards, $113,996 a year.
Vote for Thomas Maloney of Norwood.
Lisa Barstow of Brookline, flack for DCR,
$67,393 a year. If you want to continue being
able to afford to drive to work, vote for
Susan Huffman of Newton.
Colleen Maloney of Bridgewater, some hack job in
Public Safety for $60,576. Looks like she’s
unopposed — does someone who owns an
automobile want to step up as a write-in against
her?
Jennifer Cunningham of Plymouth, paralegal in
Public Safety, $67,695 a year. Her opponent is
Linda Zuern of Bourne.
Ryan Chamberland of Blackstone, deputy chief
Executive Office of Public Safety, $83,218 a
year. His opponent is Kevin William Powers of
Millville.
Mike Case of Washington, formerly on the DCR
payroll for $81,346 a year. (Google the
circumstances of his departure from the
hackerama in 2017.) His opponent is Tyler
James Hastings of Windsor.
Janet Leombruno of Framingham, not officially on
the state payroll but has collected $3,251.68
from the committee of her dear friend Karyn
Polito. Her opponent is Leda Arakelian of
Hopkinton.
Laura Sapienza-Grabski of Boxford, member of the
Board of Food and Agriculture, only a
$200-a-year stipend but technically she’s a Tall
Deval coatholder. Vote for Amanda Kesterson
of Gloucester.
Mindy McKenzie of Shrewsbury (Karyn’s hometown),
paid $7,500 for Polito fundraising in 2019. Her
opponent is Brenda Brown of Shrewsbury.
If most or all of these Tall Deval hacks are
defeated on Super Tuesday, it will send a
message — especially if the new state committee
immediately votes, say, 80-0 to denounce the
Republican turncoat Baker for betraying his
constituents.
I’m sure some of these overpaid hacks aren’t bad
people. But if it comes down a choice between
their political futures and my wallet, well, I
guess you know which side I’m on. How about you?
State House
News Service
Friday, January 31, 2020
Advances - Week of Feb. 2, 2020
In six months, most of the
thousands of bills competing for attention on
Beacon Hill will die with the end of formal
sessions for the two-year cycle. The timeline
underscores the importance of Wednesday's
biennial deadline for most joint legislative
committees to make some kind of determination on
bills in their custody. Under Joint Rule 10,
Feb. 5 - the first Wednesday in February of the
second annual session of the General Court - is
the deadline for reporting on bills referred to
committees before the first day of the second
annual session (Jan. 1, 2020).
Most joint committees must also report within 30
days on all matters referred to them on and
after the first day of the second annual session
(Jan. 1, 2020). Bill supporters and opponents
are fiercely competing for "ought to pass" and
"ought not to pass" recommendations. While bills
that receive favorable recommendations may still
become bottled up at another legislative
chokepoint, sponsors of bills that get a
negative recommendation or are referred for
further study are probably out of options for
success this cycle.
The House is planning to hold a formal session
Wednesday, but leadership did not detail what
representatives will be asked to consider,
leaving open the possibility that the House
could bring to the floor any number of bills --
including the revenue-raising transportation
bill House leaders have been working for months
to craft. The speaker's office told
representatives to be prepared to consider items
on the House calendar and anything sent over by
the Senate.
Other storylines on Beacon Hill as the calendar
shifts to February:
— TRANSPO $$$:
The long wait continues for a revenue-generating
bill being compiled by House Democrats.
Lawmakers have built up high expectations for
their proposal, sketching out broad goals like
improving public transit and addressing traffic
congestion, but they've had trouble agreeing on
specifics and the bill's release has been
delayed.
Monday, Feb. 3, 2020
CLIMATE POLL DISCUSSION: Secretary of
Energy and Environmental Affairs Kathleen
Theoharides delivers the keynote address at a
MassINC Polling Group and Barr Foundation event
discussing new polling data on what
Massachusetts residents think about climate
change. MassINC Polling Group President Steve
Koczela will present poll results and MassINC
Transit-Oriented Development Fellow Tracy Corley
will moderate a panel discussion featuring
Environmental League of Massachusetts President
Elizabeth Turnbull Henry, Massachusetts
Competitive Partnership CEO and former Housing
and Economic Development Secretary Jay Ash, and
Holyoke Planning and Economic Development
Director Marcos Marrero. Register (Monday, 9:30
a.m., UMass Club, One Beacon St., Boston)
The Boston
Herald
Saturday, February 1, 2020
A Boston Herald editorial
Don’t dilute state’s already lax immigration
enforcement
Renewed efforts to turn Massachusetts into a
haven for illegal immigrants took center stage
on Beacon Hill recently.
The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Public
Safety and Homeland Security hosted a packed
hearing Jan. 24, on a bill that would limit how
local police and federal immigration officials
interact over immigration-related matters.
Rep. Ruth Balser, a Newton Democrat and the
bill’s co-sponsor, said while the state
Legislature cannot fix national immigration
policy, there are steps it can take to make
Massachusetts a “safe and welcoming place” for
immigrants.
Most people would likely assume she was
referring to immigrants who entered this country
legally. However, her concern was reserved for
those who flout our immigration laws and then
expect our legal system to shield them from the
consequences of that illegal act.
The state’s Republican Party rightfully took
issue with that skewed view. In a written
statement, it said the bill would “protect those
who have already broken the law by crossing our
borders illegally.”
The Senate backed similar language contained in
a budget amendment by Sen. Jamie Eldridge in the
last legislative session.
But that bid received considerable pushback.
Gov. Charlie Baker, who doesn’t oppose
communities adopting sanctuary policies,
nonetheless threatened to veto any sanctuary
state bill. “We did not feel that that would
enhance the quality of public safety in the
commonwealth,” Baker stated at the time.
The Acton Democrat’s amendment stalled in the
House.
This session’s proposed legislation would
prevent the Department of Correction, state
police, sheriff departments and city or town
police departments from performing the functions
of an immigration officer. U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, state and local enforcement
agencies could only conduct interviews,
including informal questioning, for immigration
purposes if the individual provides “informed
consent” in writing.
Also under this bill, officers or employees of
law enforcement agencies could only notify DHS
of an alien’s imminent release from state or
local custody if that person had completed the
term of that sentence. The bill does not,
however, prevent state or local agencies from
sending or receiving information regarding
immigration status from local, state or federal
entities.
In practice and under the law, most illegal
immigrants in this state already enjoy virtual
immunity from deportation. In 2018,
Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court ruled that
local police don’t have the power to detain
people on immigration violations unless they
also face criminal charges. However, the SJC
also said the Legislature has the power to
change that.
In response to that decision, the governor filed
legislation seeking to authorize, but not
require, state and local law enforcement to
honor specific ICE detainers for “aliens who
pose a threat to public safety.” Even that
reasonable measure has failed to gain sufficient
support in the Legislature.
And federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement
resources only allow for the apprehension of
those who have been charged with serious crimes.
So, it’s easy to see why most illegals have
little to fear from federal, state or local
authorities, But we shouldn’t endorse the sorry
state [of] our immigration enforcement system by
codifying it with a legislative seal of
approval.
|
| |
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
|
