Take Two: Lawmakers again send climate bill to Charlie Baker
Sweeping climate policy legislation is back on Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk two weeks after he rejected a previous iteration of the same bill.
After Baker vetoed the bill following the end of last session, the House and Senate worked quickly to refile and pass the same language.
The timing of their votes last term — taken the second-to-last day of the session — did not leave the Legislature enough time to override Baker’s veto, despite having enough support behind the bill to do so. In the new session lawmakers will have an opportunity to respond to any amendments or a veto from the governor.
“We are on the cusp of a sustainability revolution,” Sen. Marc Pacheco, D-Taunton, proclaimed during Thursday’s session as he urged his colleagues to build on the bill and engage in more ambitious proposals in the new session.
Among other measures, the bill would lock the state into its goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, set interim emission reduction targets, establish appliance energy efficiency standards, authorize additional purchases of offshore wind power and codify protections for environmental justice communities.
Rep. Thomas Golden, D-Lowell, and Sen. Michael Barrett, D-Lexington, refiled the bill (S 9) this session. The two Democrats led the five months of negotiations that produced final legislation last term.
Barrett said Thursday that he had spoken with senators about the bill over the past week, in part to allay specific constituent concerns.
Barrett said new Sen. Adam Gomez, D-Springfield, who was not a member of the Senate when the bill passed on Jan. 4, is “reassured” about a five-year moratorium on biomass projects in western Massachusetts, and Sen. Nick Collins, D-South Boston, had brought forward a “legitimate question” from the restaurant industry about appliance efficiency standards.
New House Speaker Ronald Mariano and Senate President Karen Spilka, in a Jan. 19 joint statement, said the bill “rejects the false choice between economic growth and addressing climate change” and pledged to send it back to Baker, who cited concerns about the bill’s potential to hold down housing production in his veto message.
Baker has said that if he had time he would have rather returned the climate bill with recommended amendments instead of vetoing it.