THE EVERETT ADVOCATE – Friday, February 7, 2020 Page 13 2020 Everett High School Senior Athletes T he “E” Club of Everett has been granting scholarships for 48 years! In order to apply for a scholarship, you need to be a member of the E Club. Our Scholarships range in value between $1,000 and $2,500. All that is necessary to apply is our Scholarship Application filled out, a membership form and a $10.00 fee to join the club. Each student will have until February 14, 2020, to return the application and membership. We look forward to your participation and good luck. Everett High School Athletic Director Tammy Turner is the “E” Club Scholarship Chairperson, and EHS Guidance Counselor Stanley Chamblain – a member of the Scholarship Committee – will have the membership applications and the scholarship applications to be picked up. Please return completed forms to them so that the Scholarship Committee may select this year’s winners. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact Turner or Chamblain at the high school. We hope to see you as an applicant! THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records the votes of local senators from the week of January 27-31. There were no roll calls in the House last week. NEXT GENERATION CLIMATE PACKAGE (S 2476, S 2477 and S 2478) Senate 36-2, 36-2 and 36-2 on three separate roll calls, approved three bills known as the “Next Generation Climate Package.” Under the bills, the Baker administration would be free to choose among various market-based forms of pricing carbon—including a revenue-neutral fee or a regional “cap and trade” system similar to the Transportation Climate Initiative. —It would have to do so by Jan. 1, 2022, for transportation; Jan. 1, 2025, for commercial, industrial and institutional buildings; and Jan. 1, 2030, for residential buildings. Any mechanism would be implemented so as to minimize the impact on low-income households, disadvantaged communities, and vulnerable manufacturing sectors. The package includes setting a statewide greenhouse gas limit for the year 2050 of “net zero” emissions; requiring the MBTA to limit bus purchases and leases to zero-emissions vehicles beginning in 2030, and to aim for an all-zero-emissions fl eet by 2040; directing state government to limit purchases and leases of vehicles to zero emissions vehicles only, beginning in 2024; and updating Massachusetts appliance standards to improve energy and water effi ciency standards for common household and commercial appliances. Other provisions establish the Massachusetts Climate Policy Commission as an independent public watchdog to oversee government’s handling of the climate change crisis; jumpstart eff orts to supply lowcost solar electricity to low-income communities; and require the Department of Public Utilities to balance six priorities: reliability of supply, aff ordability, public safety, physical and cyber security, equity, and significantly, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. “We’ve written the strongest climate statute in the nation,” said Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), Senate Chair of the Utilities and Energy Committee and author of the legislation. “The bills started out strong. Then they got better as the debate went on. More protection for low- and moderate-income families. Special sensitivity to the climate challenges facing small towns and rural areas. Retraining for people who may need to change jobs as we green the economy. In the fi ght against climate change, this lifts Massachusetts to the next level.” “We applaud Senate President Spilka and the Massachusetts Senate for this signifi cant step forward in addressing the climate crisis,” said Jacob Stern, Deputy Director of the Sierra Club Massachusetts Chapter. “By setting a much-needed 2030 emissions target, rolling out zero-emission building standard and creating new opportunities for low-income residents to access solar, today’s legislation will help reduce the state’s carbon pollution. However, we are disappointed that despite broad support from the advocacy community, there wasn’t a commitment to transition the state to 100 percent clean, renewable electricity in the fi nal legislation. The responsibility to act now falls to the Massachusetts House of Representatives. We look forward to working with House leadership to pass critical climate policies into law before the end of the 2019-2020 legislative session in July.” “Climate change is a real problem with humans adding to the issue through carbon emission,” said Sen. Dean Tran (R-Fitchburg), one of only two opponents of the package. “We need to implement changes that would reduce human carbon footprint responsibly. Bills that do not have cost and impact analysis will have devastating fi nancial consequences on people who are on fi xed and low incomes, and the working class. These bills will create burdens on small businesses and will negatively impact the economy and stifl e growth." “I am proud of the Senate for acting quickly on this legislation which takes a historic step in our fi ght to reduce harmful emissions that hurt our planet and our residents,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “I commend Sen. Barrett for his diligence in crafting a thorough legislative package that takes concrete steps to combat climate change by providing a plan to create a greener, healthier and more sustainable future.” “Residents of the commonwealth can’t aff ord this legislation. Massachusetts continually ranks as one of the most expensive states in which to live where the median price for a single-family home is almost double the national average,” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton), the other opponent of the legislation. “This bill will only make housing prices more expensive by requiring solar panels on all new construction, which will increase development costs for new homes by $30,000 to $70,000. Nearly all new homes will also require electric based heating systems and appliances, placing upward pressure on utility rates across the state because wood, natural gas and oil-based appliances would be out of compliance with a net-zero stretch energy code. Fattman continued, “Another major concern is that there is no price tag on the total costs of the mandates, taxes, and fees associated with this legislation … We are currently facing an unprecedented aff ordable housing and transportation crisis and this legislation will only make it more unaff ordable to live and work in Massachusetts.” (The vote below represents the vote on each of the three separate bills. A “Yes” vote is for the package. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes PILOT PROGRAM FOR GEOTHERMAL ENERGY (S 2477) Senate 37-0, approved an amendment making it clear that the Department of Public Utilities should approve gas company pilot programs to deliver renewable thermal energy. The amendment also ensures evaluation by independent third parties to determine the effi cacy of the new systems. “My amendment gives gas companies an opportunity to move away from delivering a greenhouse gas containing over 90 percent methane and toward providing renewable thermal energy for heating and cooling,” said Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), the sponsor of the amendment. “Natural gas is not healthy for us or the planet, while geothermal energy is a path to keeping good jobs, protecting ratepayers and giving customers a choice for heating.” (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes REGIONAL EQUITY (S 2477) Senate 37-0, approved an amendment that would require that when the Secretary of Energy and the Environment submits his 5-year plan for how the state will comply with the emissions limits established in the climate bill, the plans must “address the distinguishing characteristics and vulnerabilities of rural, suburban and urban households.” “The two words that go best together are “regional equity,” said amendment sponsor Sen. Jo Comerford (D-Northampton). “What we are here saying today is yes to carbon pricing, but we cannot do that if we disproportionately burden rural communities where we drive more and where we do not have adequate access to public transportation. So yes to carbon pricing, but through a regional equity lens.” (A “Yes” vote is for the amendment.) Sen. Sal DiDomenico Yes HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK'S SESSION? Beacon Hill Roll Call tracks the length of time that the House and Senate were in session each week. Many legislators say that legislative sessions are only one aspect of the Legislature's job and that a lot of important work is done outside of the House and Senate chambers. They note that their jobs also involve committee work, research, constituent work and other matters that are important to their districts. Critics say that the Legislature does not meet regularly or long enough to debate and vote in public view on the thousands of pieces of legislation that have been fi led. They note that the infrequency and brief length of sessions are misguided and lead to irresponsible late-night sessions and a mad rush to act on dozens of bills in the days immediately preceding the end of an annual session. During the week of January 27-31, the House met for a total of 16 minutes while the Senate met for a total of ten hours and eleven minutes. Mon. January 27 House 11:01 a.m. to 11:07 a.m. Senate 11:10 a.m. to 11:14 a.m. Tues. January 28 No House session Wed. January 29 No House session Fri. January 31 No House session No Senate session No Senate session Thurs. January 30 House 10:59 a.m. to 11:09 a.m. Senate 11:21 a.m. to 9:28 p.m. No Senate session Bob Katzen welcomes feedback at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com

14 Publizr Home

You need flash player to view this online publication