SHARE Share Button Share Button SHARE

Process matters on legislation like energy bill

OUR OPINION

On Wednesday — exactly two weeks before the current session’s July 31 end date — the state House of Representatives passed a sweeping clean energy bill aimed at “upgrading the grid and protecting ratepayers.” The legislation, which passed the House on a party- line vote with all Democrats and no Republicans in favor, is an amended version of a similar bill filed in and passed by the Senate late last month that seeks to put Massachusetts on a viable path toward meeting clean energy and emissions goals set by previous climate roadmap legislation.

To meet those goals, the energy bill that Beacon Hill leaders are trying to push over the rapidly approaching finish line would, among other things, significantly reform siting and review procedures for clean energy projects. It would tighten deadlines for review of clean energy project proposals, streamline appeals and, critically, consolidate permitting by adopting a single, consolidated permit to authorize clean energy infrastructure instead of multiple permits stretching across local, regional and state levels.

We know we speak for many of our neighbors when we say we’re all for boosting the commonwealth’s green energy potential, striving toward the ambitious but necessary goals in the state’s climate roadmap and making Massachusetts a leader in the smart transition to a more sustainable energy grid.

Yet as we near the end of another two-year legislative session on Beacon Hill, an all-too-familiar question arises: Why do our state’s lawmakers always seem to wait until the 11th hour to file and forward some of the session’s most impactful legislation? There are 19 months on every formal session’s calendar, but legislative leadership opted to rush this bill through in about a month’s time hoping to beat the buzzer. According to State House News Service‘s reporting on the House’s passage of its amended version of the bill, “Climate change is often pointed to by public officials as a major issue facing society, but few Democrats opted to publicly debate or discuss the bill, with only two legislators making brief statements on amendments that were quickly approved. The 107 amendments to the bill were dealt with quickly and without much debate.”

This is no way to legislate on major issues like revamping the commonwealth’s energy infrastructure approval process — especially as core elements of this bill are likely to prove controversial with some parties who could view these attempts at streamlining the permitting process as an erosion of home rule. Allowing big clean energy projects like wind turbines or solar farms to proceed with just one consolidated permit from a state authority, as this legislation appears to allow, would minimize local control over approval of such projects.

We say “appears” because, frankly, this sweeping legislation has not benefited from the scrutinizing light of even minimal public hearing and input. Gov. Maura Healey’s administration reportedly helped Senate and House leaders craft the legislation’s siting and permitting reforms. Did those leaders consider consulting with their fellow public servants in municipal governance who might have a thing or two to say about diminishing or eliminating the oversight of duly elected local boards?

Please log in or subscribe to continue reading the article

SHARE Share Button Share Button SHARE