The MA Supreme Judicial Court has ruled out the proposed pipeline tax, intended to help build the Spectra gas pipeline. In so doing, they’ve done what our sad-sack, corporate-controlled House of Representatives wouldn’t do, in spite of 97 Reps’ signatures against the pipeline and a 39-0 vote in the Senate to ban the tax/fee.
From Conservation Law Foundation’s press release:
According to the opinion by Justice Cordy, DPU’s 2015 rule (“Order 15-37”) allowing Massachusetts electric customers to be charged for the construction of interstate gas pipelines is prohibited by the plain languages of statutes that have been the law of the land in Massachusetts for almost two decades.
In his opinion, Justice Cordy wrote, Order 15-37 is “invalid in light of the statutory language and purpose of G. L. c. 164, § 94A, as amended by the restructuring act, because, among other things, it would undermine the main objectives of the act and reexpose ratepayers to the types of financial risks from which the Legislature sought to protect them.”
Here’s the full opinion. (Cordy, unfortunately, is returning to the private sector.)
How nice to get bailed out by the SJC. How pathetic that our House of Representatives spit the bit when given the opportunity to protect consumers and our habitat.
I just gave them $10 to say thanks for doing the dirty work the House wouldn’t. You should too: https://secure2.convio.net/clf/site/Donation2?df_id=2440&2440.donation=form1
Back UIP candidate Keri Thompson who’s against Spextra and who’s Treasurer is also affiliated with the grassroots campaign to kill the pipeline. She’s running unopposed for our nomination, while the Democratic frontrunner Steve Burm is the hand picked choice of pipeline supporter Garrett Bradley to fill his seat.
Back non-UIP candidates in contested primaries against pipeline enablers including Nora Harrington against Timilty, Bob Croce against Ted Speliotis, and Kimatra Maxwell against Steve Hay. Others can chime in to, and look to Sierra Club to make endorsements.
So much misinformation. Where to start?
1) Joan Meschino is the liberal (some use the term) progressive candidate for the 3rd Plymouth State Representative seat. Joan is running in the Democratic primary.
2) Those living in the district consider Joan, not Steve Burm, to be the front-runner for the Democratic primary write-in campaign.
3) Joan Meschino is running independent of the Mass House Leadership.
4) There is significant doubt whether Keri Thompson will even gather the requisite 150 write-in votes during the Sept 8 UIP primary. Should she suceed, many in the district believe having her on the November ballot would increase the risk of a conservative Republican winning the seat. (BTW, there are two GOP candidates; both have Facebook posts seemingly endorsing Trump.)
5) Keri’s platform as described on her web site is not particularly liberal (progressive if you prefer that term).
6) Steve Burm, while a former aide to Garrett Bradley, may disagree with your characterization of him.
JConway, it’s obvious you do not live in the 3rd Plymouth district. Perhaps you should save your commentary for something you understand better.
Ask those opposed to the North Weymouth compressor station, which candidate has their back.
Joan Meschino was at the March against the pipeline. Joan was their at the demonstration that convinced Weymouth Mayor Hedlund not to accept Spectra Energy’s settlement. Joan was at the FERC and Mass Environmental Review meetings.
And where was Keri? She wasn’t at ANY of the compressor station opposition events.
There not their
Has been consistently against the pipeline and marched against it on 7/15. So to call him an “enabler” is just not accurate.
Why would the SJC have to step in if the Senate voted against it 39-0? Don’t laws, especially taxes, only take effect if approved by BOTH chambers of the General Court?
So it wasn’t law. The understanding of the status quo was that elec IOUs (Eversource, National Grid, Unitil) could collect from elec ratepayers to pay for gas pipeline infrastructure, per a recent DPU ruling. The SJC ruled that the DPU decision ran afoul of late 1990s MA legislation (that was signed into law) preventing the elec IOUs from owning elec generation equipment.
That’s the 50,000 foot explanation. I’ll leave it to an energy lawyer for more details.
The restructuring law said ratepayers could no longer be at risk for energy projects. The DPU tried to carve out an exception. The SJC said the DPU lacks the power to do so.
The pipeline companies can still proceed with their plans, but must bear all of the risks themselves. Consequently (as with electrical generation, see nuclear power) if things go pear-shaped ratepayers will be held harmless, and some things won’t get built that shouldn’t.
😉
an economist, sometimes.
The jokes write themselves, and we just might enjoy the conversation…
so.
If I weren’t already supporting Bill Humphrey in the 3rd district, I certainly would be after this decision. It’s important to have another progressive Democrat in there to keep an eye on Baker’s appointments to the Court.