Baker stressing over one piece of climate bill
Photo | WBJ File
Gov. Charlie Baker
Gov. Charlie Baker still doesn't know what to do about his agita.
Under a sweeping clean energy and climate bill lawmakers returned to his desk, 10 cities and towns would have the ability to restrict or prohibit the use of fossil fuels in most construction or major renovation projects.
And now, two days from his deadline to act, his proposed changes to the bill already adopted or rejected and his departure from office nearing, Baker must determine exactly how much discomfort he is willing to accept.
"That part of the bill gives me agita," Baker said Tuesday. "One of the big decisions we have to make is whether my concerns about that particular piece, which cut at something I think everybody would agree is a very significant problem here in Massachusetts, overwhelm the rest of the good the bill does or not."
Baker told reporters he continues to review the bill (H 5060), which would overhaul how Massachusetts supports the growing offshore wind industry, spur a transition to renewable energy sources and widespread use of electric vehicles, and move toward the state's net-zero emissions by 2050 target.
Lawmakers spent months crafting the final proposal in private negotiations, which Baker returned with a suite of amendments, including a proposal to inject $750 million in American Rescue Plan Act spending into the bill and additional restrictions on the fossil-free local options that would allow the program to take effect only when the electrical grid reaches a certain capacity.
The Legislature adopted some but not all of the changes he sought and sent the final product back to Baker on July 31, the final day for formal business in the two-year session.
"I've expressed deep concerns about what I view as the exclusionary zoning provisions involving those 10 towns," Baker said. "We know that exclusionary zoning, which has been a fact of life in Massachusetts for decades, has made it really hard and harder and harder every year for low-income and moderate-income people to find a place that they can afford to live."
A veto from Baker would essentially kill the bill because lawmakers, who waited until the final weeks of formal lawmaking sessions to finish the bill, plan to meet for the remainder of the term only in informal sessions where they cannot take the roll call votes necessary for an override.
Whether he chooses to sign the bill or spike it, Baker will not get another pass at crafting substantial climate legislation before he leaves office in January. That puts him on somewhat different footing than at the end of the last two-year legislative session, when he vetoed a bill setting the net-zero by 2050 target and worked with lawmakers in the first few months of the current term to find common ground.
More than 30 bills remain on Baker's desk following the flurry of action leading up to, on and hours after July 31, including an $11.3 billion infrastructure bond bill with action due Wednesday and prominent bills due Thursday dealing with mental health care access, cannabis industry regulations, legal sports betting, and a judiciary technology bond bill that updates gun laws in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.
"But don't forget about mental health," Senate President Karen Spilka said Tuesday when asked if she expected Baker to sign the climate bill. "I'm hoping that there's ... I mean, mental health is already being heralded as a landmark, first-in-the-nation bill as well. So hopefully both climate and mental health."
Baker has not signaled any plans for the legislation remaining on his to-do list, typically offering a variation on a common line: he's still reviewing it.
That extends to a topic like sports betting, whose legalization has been supported by Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito.
"We have a lot of bills that are on our desk right now," Baker said. "Some of them are very long and complicated, including the sports betting bill. It's no secret that the lieutenant governor and I filed versions of the sports betting bill in two successive legislative sessions or that the vast majority of the states in the Northeast have sports betting legalized there. This is certainly something that we support. We're still working through the details, and obviously we'll be done with that bill some time in the next couple of days, but conceptually, this is something we've supported for a while."
The bill remained lodged in conference committee negotiations for months amid a House and Senate disagreement over whether to allow wagers on college sports, and lawmakers eventually agreed to permit gambling on some collegiate contests but not on Massachusetts schools unless they are participating in a tournament.
"I had actually talked about supporting some version of that compromise when that was being discussed about six months ago, so that language wasn't unfamiliar to us, and it's actually been used, I think, in other states," Baker said.
The allure of placing bets on sporting events has generated immense public interest, fueled in part by frequent discussion on sports talk radio shows.
Regulators on the Massachusetts Gaming Commission said last week that the option will not become available "overnight" if Baker signs the bill, pointing to regulatory and licensing processes that take months.
"Well, that'd be disappointing if it takes too long," House Speaker Ron Mariano said Tuesday, adding that some gaming facilities are "ready to open the doors as quickly as you can." "I hope we can get it up and running, at least in time for football."
The power of Baker's pen and the Legislature's chronic procrastination combined to effectively stall another lawmaking priority: eliminating the costs that incarcerated people and their families face to communicate.
Mariano signaled Tuesday that the House and Senate remain at odds over how to handle no-cost prison phone calls, which both branches approved in their fiscal year 2023 budgets.
Baker attached pieces of his controversial dangerousness bill, which stalled out in committee, to the prison and jail communication budget rider. The House rejected that addition 31-122, and the Senate then approved a narrower version of Baker's pre-trial detention amendment, opening up a gap between the two branches.
"I think you saw the vote on dangerousness in the House," Mariano said when asked if there was any interest in revisiting the Senate's changes. "Dangerousness was rejected with 122 votes."
0 Comments