JULY 31, 2024.....As lawmakers take talks over a compromise clean energy and climate bill down to the wire, advocates are urging the negotiators to at least pass a bill before formal business ends that includes the siting and permitting changes that the Healey administration drafted with lawmakers after a months-long commission study of the issue.

Groups like Coalition for Community Solar Access, The Nature Conservancy, Mass Audubon, the MA Association of Conservation Commissions, Solar Energy Industries Association, RENEW Northeast, Advanced Energy United, Northeast Clean Energy Council, and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council have been peppering the energy conference committee with letters and other outreach to impress upon lawmakers the importance of getting those permitting and siting reforms on the books quickly.

"Unfortunately, clean energy deployment has lagged in recent years as permitting timelines stretch into multiple years for even small projects, and as the buildout of new grid infrastructure to enable clean energy deployment has similarly gotten bogged down in an outdated and overly complicated permitting process. Streamlining this process is imperative, and the proposed permitting reform package must pass this session to have any impact on our ability to achieve the Commonwealth’s 2030 clean energy targets," the Massachusetts clean energy trade associations wrote in a letter Monday. "After a bill is enacted there will be a regulatory process to implement the reforms, meaning that the soonest we could permit projects under the new regime is 2026. We cannot afford to wait until the next legislative session and push this date out two more years."

The House and Senate each passed legislation in recent months taking aim at the complicated process to approve clean energy projects and incorporating a package of reforms designed to modernize the electric grid to accommodate more energy from cleaner generation sources. But in addition to the recommendations made by the governor's Commission on Clean Energy Infrastructure Siting and Permitting, both branches also loaded their bills with their own priorities.

The House included a push to have the state procure greater amounts of clean energy generation, and the Senate included a focus on ramping down natural gas programs as a way to shield Bay Staters from utility bill increases expected to come along with the permitting and siting changes. Sen. Michael Barrett, the lead negotiator for the Senate, has said it is critical to him that the higher costs of electrification be offset so ratepayers don't start rebelling against the clean energy transition.

Massachusetts has committed itself to ratcheting down greenhouse gas emissions to the net zero level by 2050, with crucial checkpoints along the way. The primary strategy is to pivot energy generation towards cleaner sources like solar and offshore wind, and simultaneously maximize the electrification of buildings and transportation.

That will create significantly greater demand for electricity. The report from the governor's commission said heating electrification demand "is expected to increase by a factor of 17 to 19 between 2023 and 2032" and that electric vehicle charging demand "is expected to increase by a factor of 13 by 2030."

"All stakeholders agree that reforming decades old siting and permitting law is our most urgent climate transition priority. The Commonwealth will not and cannot achieve our ambitious climate goals without it," the Mass. Coalition for Sustainable Energy, which includes Associated Industries of Massachusetts, NFIB, Retailer Association of Massachusetts, and the Home Builders and Remodelers Association, said.

The Nature Conservancy, Mass Audubon and the MA Association of Conservation Commissions -- all of which had a representative participate in the governor's commission process -- told lawmakers their top priority in the energy bill is seeing the Legislature enact more efficient and equitable siting and permitting of clean energy to meet the state's decarbonization goals.

"As appointed members of the Commission on Energy Infrastructure Siting and Permitting (CEISP), we are incredibly grateful that fellow commission members Chairs Barrett and Roy, in collaboration with the Healey-Driscoll administration, led both branches of the legislature to support the CEISP’s recommendations. These recommendations provide a more efficient and equitable process to accelerate the deployment of clean energy infrastructure and ensure better outcomes for people and nature," the groups said.

In a separate letter Wednesday, the MAPC, New Leaf Energy and Bluewave -- all of which also had representatives on the governor's commission -- urged the conferees to not "pass up this opportunity to take action while all of the key stakeholders are on board."

"The language included in both House and Senate bills is a carefully balanced compromise that derives from a months-long collaborative effort among stakeholders representing widely disparate views on how siting and permitting of clean energy resources should work. Despite these disparate views, this group aligned around a set of recommendations, reflected in legislation already passed in both Chambers, that would reform the way clean energy is sited and permitted in the Commonwealth," the groups wrote.

The House and Senate bills each drew opposition from Republican lawmakers so it would likely be perilous for bill supporters to try to pass a compromise bill during upcoming informal sessions, when an objection from a single lawmaker can prevent a bill from advancing.

Sen. Marc Pacheco, one of the loudest and most consistent voices for climate and energy legislation on Beacon Hill for years, took issue Tuesday night with the Senate adjourning before 8 p.m. with so much significant business still left to be tackled. He told the News Service on Wednesday morning that he is "particularly concerned with a climate bill."

"And particularly the underlying piece of the bill needs to be getting to yes on permitting so we can expedite the work that we need to do in order to meet the requirements that we have in state law. If we don't meet the requirements that we have in state law, we'll be failing," Pacheco said.