Sen. Michael Barrett of Lexington, the Senate chair of the committee, was much more circumspect in his remarks. He said Baker’s proposal for more investment in offshore wind appeared promising, but drew the line there.

“Let’s not miss the elephant in the room,” he said in a statement. “The big idea here is the complete abolition of legal checks on the cost of electricity generated by offshore wind.  Legislators are being asked to terminate protection for the people who pay their electric bills every month, which is most of us.  For the administration, this is a major policy change.”

“In terms of the cost of electricity per kilowatt hour, we pay some of the highest rates in the country,” Barrett continued. “Because of the climate crisis, we need to go all-electric with respect to both our cars and our heating systems, which means we need to boost our overall consumption of electricity in the teeth of our high per-unit costs. It’s a dicey time to bring up abolishing price constraints.”

Read more…

Senator Mike Barrett, who reviewed an early copy of the report, called it a watershed analysis that should leave residents wondering: “When do we stop investing in what is essentially as-good-as-new infrastructure, when what we really must be about is walking away from the natural gas enterprise as we know it?”

Read more…

“Under the environmental justice policy in the new biomass regulations, which are set to take effect this week, future biomass facilities could be located and be eligible for incentives in just 10 to 11 percent of the state — a stretch of communities west of the Connecticut River and along the Connecticut border, a strip of coastline that runs through Cohasset, Scituate and Marshfield, and small shreds of various other towns. 

“Sen. Mike Barrett, the co-chair of the TUE Committee, said the bills Livingstone and the Springfield lawmakers supported seemed like it ‘simply makes formal what the Baker people already conceded informally, which is that there is not to be any additional biomass built in Massachusetts.’ 

“’If we’re going to create a map by administration regulation that bars biomass for 89 percent of the state, I think this is a de facto admission that biomass should no longer be part of a clean energy portfolio for Massachusetts,’ Barrett said. He added, ‘All we’re being asked to do is to formalize something that has already become an informal rule. And in so formalizing this new policy against biomass, we would be protecting a handful of remaining towns that don’t qualify for environmental justice protection.’” 

Read more…

Sen. Michael Barrett questioned why the administration had chosen not to fund certain climate projects, such as a modernization of the electric grid that will be necessary as the state transitions to more electric heating of homes and businesses. 

“I don’t sense a consistent theme of trying to get a two for one hit, or trying to make sure mitigation, averting future climate problems, is always part of an adaptation policy,” Barrett said. 

Read more…

“You can’t have utilities in charge of an all-out push to electrify,” said Senator Mike Barrett, a Lexington Democrat who was the lead author of the state’s 2050 climate law. “Mass Save is probably not going to be the quarterback to bring us to the emissions reductions Super Bowl as it’s currently constituted.” 

Read more…