18

Page 18 THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2024 By Bob Katzen If you have any questions about this week’s report, e-mail us at bob@beaconhillrollcall.com or call us at (617) 720-1562 GET A FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO MASSTERLIST — Join more than 22,000 people, from movers and shakers to political junkies and interested citizens, who start their weekday morning with MASSterList—the popular newsletter that chronicles news and informed analysis about what’s going on up on Beacon Hill, in Massachusetts politics, policy, media and infl uence. The stories are drawn from major news organizations as well as specialized publications. MASSterlist will be e-mailed to you FREE every Monday through Friday morning and will give you a leg up on what’s happening in the blood sport of Bay State politics. For more information and to get your free subscription, go to: https://massterlist.com/subscribe/ THE HOUSE AND SENATE. Beacon Hill Roll Call records local senators’ votes on the only roll call from the week of October 2125. There were no roll calls in the House last week. CLEAN ENERGY AND CLIMATE (S 2967) Senate 38-2, approved and sent to the House climate/energy legislation that supporters say will make systemic changes to the state’s clean energy infrastructure that will help the state achieve its net zero emissions by 2050 goals. They say it will also expand electric vehicle use and infrastructure and protect residents and ratepayers. A House-Senate conference committee drafted the compromise version to resolve the differences in the competing versions approved by the House and Senate earlier this year. Sen. Mike Barrett (D-Lexington), the chief Senate sponsor of the bill, chairman of the conference committee that drafted this version of the bill and Senate chair of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to comment on his long battle to secure passage of this legislation. “I’m so pleased we fi nally came to terms with some of the outstanding issues to try to get a bill done and get it to the governor’s desk,” said Sen. Marc Pacheco (DTaunton).” This is a critical issue that is impacting our world, our region, our state. This legislation helps to address some of the climate policy concerns facing the commonwealth. However, there is much more work that needs to be done, and we need to begin that discussion today.” “This comprehensive climate bill will help us achieve our obligation to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 by moving us forward on clean energy siting and permitting, gas system reform, energy storage procurement, electric vehicle charging, embodied carbon, utility resilience, carbon removal and so many other areas of climate policy,” said Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton), the chair of the Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change. “The bill also protects ratepayers by preventing investments in gas infrastructure that are wasteful and contrary to our climate mandates.” “Today the Senate took decisive action to address the climate crisis,” said Senate President Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “While achieving the shared goal of reforming siting and permitting so that we can ensure that clean energy projects get approved and built at the rate necessary to meet our state’s ambitious emissions reduction goals, I’m proud to say that the fi nal bill also contains many provisions that the Senate heard were crucial from those who are on-the-ground leading eff orts to fi ght climate change. We are expanding electric vehicle charging infrastructure and incentives, addressing the high cost and long life span of gas infrastructure projects as we strive to move towards cleaner energy sources, and protecting rate payers from bearing the costs of this transformational shift. I believe that the months of bipartisan negotiations allowed us to produce a stronger bill for our residents—and for our longterm clean energy future.” “Today the Massachusetts Senate voted on ‘An Act promoting a clean energy grid, advancing equity and protecting ratepayers,’” said Sen. Ryan Fattman (R-Sutton) one of only two senators who voted against the measure. “Ironically, the eff ect of the bill and the name are at odds. This bill will raise prices of utilities and electric bills for consumers and, in fact, not protect them from rising costs of living in the Commonwealth. Because of these reasons, I voted no on this bill and stand in opposition of legislation that promises to help when in fact it hurts.” Sen Peter Durant (R-Spencer), the only other senator to vote against the bill, did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call to explain his opposition to the measure. The Mass Fiscal Alliance opposed the bill and added that passing such a major and complex bill less than two weeks before Election Day sets a troubling precedent. “Legislatures across the country should avoid what the Massachusetts State Senate is doing,” said Paul Craney, spokesperson for the group. “Rushing through major policy right before an election prioritizes special interests over voters,” “The Massachusetts Legislature is taking a dangerous turn,” continued Craney. “Whether you support this bill, or oppose it like MassFiscal does, it should concern everyone that this behavior sets a new low for how policies are passed. The worst case scenario is that this practice leads to corruption. It wouldn’t be the fi rst time legislative leaders in Massachusetts have faced corruption accusations, and these actions only make it more likely to happen again,” Craney concluded. (A “Yes” vote is for the bill. A “No” vote is against it.) Sen. Lydia Edwards Yes ALSO UP ON BEACON HILL BALLOT QUESTIONS — Here is an in depth look at Questions 4 and 5 that will be decided directly by the voters on the November 5th ballot. QUESTION 4: LIMITED LEGALIZATION AND REGULATION OF CERTAIN NATURAL PSYCHEDELIC SUBSTANCES This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would allow persons aged 21 and older to grow, possess and use certain natural psychedelic substances in some circumstances. The psychedelic substances allowed would be two substances found in mushrooms (psilocybin and psilocyn) and three substances found in plants (dimethyltryptamine, mescaline and ibogaine). These substances could be purchased at an approved location for use under the supervision of a licensed facilitator. This proposed law would otherwise prohibit any retail sale of natural psychedelic substances and would also provide for the regulation and taxation of these psychedelic substances. WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY: “We are incredibly optimistic about the campaign,” Emily Oneschuk, campaign director for “Yes on 4” told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Every day, I’m talking to new people who are excited about a new mental health option after decades of the same treatments that don’t work for everyone.” Oneschuk continued, “There are veterans, end-of-life care patients, people with treatment resistant depression and so many more who can’t get access to this therapy, who are still struggling and who still can’t fi nd relief. This campaign is giving hope to a lot of people who have been left behind and forgotten by the mental healthcare system. Voters should vote yes to bring safe, regulated and eff ective care to those struggling in Massachusetts.” WHAT OPPONENTS SAY: “This ballot question is poorly written and ill conceived,” Chris Keohane, spokesperson for “No on 4,” told Beacon Hill Roll Call. “Our opposition isn’t related to questioning the potential medicinal benefi ts of psilocybin. Our opposition comes from the contradictory language of the question itself and the dangers it opens up. Unlike the marijuana ballot question eight years ago, this one does not contain a community opt out provision. If it were to pass, all 351 cities and towns of Massachusetts would have to allow facilities in.” Keohane continued, “Allowing 144 square feet of home growth is dangerous and certainly isn’t medicine. It is self-medication without a medical professional. To put it in perspective, this allows someone to grow psychedelics in an area equivalent to the average bedroom in Massachusetts. It also allows for distribution to friends and family. We fi rmly believe this would expand a gray market of distribution. While the proponents continue to make promises of hope for those in need, it is clear that their funding is coming from venture capitalists with a vested fi nancial interest in psychedelics.” OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the offi cial arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, for each side of the question: IN FAVOR: Written by Mental Health Counselor Lt. Sarko Ger

19 Publizr Home