It’s been described as a “single“, not a home run; a sac bunt is more like it. We get a barely-useful 2% increase in the Renewable Portfolio Standard; there’s no lift to the solar cap, providing no relief for what should be a booming industry but which lost 3,000 jobs last year; there is no environmental justice component. Read the MA Sierra Club’s statement [but emphasis mine]:
“With this bill the Massachusetts legislature took baby steps on clean energy legislation when what is needed are giant strides,” said Norton. The world needs Massachusetts to be leading the transition to a clean energy economy, and instead we are offering half measures and timidity. The headlines are dominated locally and around the world by heat waves, drought, wildfires and flash floods, and the White House and Congress have turned the federal government over to fossil fuel lobbyists. We had an opportunity to be bold and grow jobs, improve public health, stabilize energy costs and reduce the fossil fuel pollution that is warming the planet, and instead Beacon Hill has sided with the status quo of fossil fuel and utility companies, over the innovation clean energy and high tech economies. I fully expect there will be electoral implications from what we have seen here today.”
“Aside from knocking Massachusetts behind other leading states in addressing climate change, this bill fails to capitalize on the benefits of developing a regional clean energy economy,” said Pasternak. “This energy bill is a missed opportunity that effectively kills more solar jobs rather than promoting good-paying, local jobs.”
The Globe’s starry-eyed headline (“big boost”!) makes it sound great; understand that particularly compared to the smashing bill the Senate passed, this is a weak-sauce, timid, lobbyist-enloused bill. A 2% yearly RPS increase hardly is an improvement compared to what other measures are already providing — it does not spur new demand for renewables. And folded into the new “clean peak” standard (which our own stomv, State Rep candidate Tommy Vitolo, tells us is “junk planning”) is stuff like support for garbage incineration (ridiculous) and biomass (sketchy).
Once again, Robert DeLeo makes his progressive Representatives look like ineffectual dupes, while safeguarding more conservative reps from “difficult votes”*. Yes, I’m talking about Lori Ehrlich, erstwhile friend of the blog, who posts chummy photos of herself and the Speaker on Facebook, but whom I don’t see eager to take credit for this debacle. I mean my own rep Sean Garballey, who (among many others) voted to install DeLeo as Speaker-for-Life back in 2015. I surely mean Ways and Means Chair Jeffrey Sanchez of Jamaica Plain; they can’t be happy with this in JP, and they’ve got an alternative in Nika Elugardo. What are these folks getting for their loyalty? Why do they get rolled, like it’s their job? There are a handful of reps who are willing to raise their voices against the Speaker, like Mike Connolly of Cambridge, and Denise Provost of Somerville. Do the other progressives have their backs? Do they act in solidarity, or is it all freelancing?
*So who wins from this? I simply cannot believe that constituents of certain “more conservative” reps were burning up the phones in opposition to a 3% RPS increase. It was the lobbying, by the utilities and fossil interests. And in DeLeo’s House, they win, and we lose.
Think of the context: 2018 is the fourth hottest year, globally — after 2015, 2016, and 2017. We have wildfires all over the country. There’s 90 degree weather north of the Arctic Circle. Our coastlines, fishing industries, and billions of dollars of property are in grave danger in Massachusetts. Climate is already causing refugee crises all over the world. Our hot, angry, dangerous future seems to have already arrived.
As I’ve said elsewhere, it is gutting to have to beg our own representatives to preserve our future; to have to beg and grovel for minimally-responsible climate policy; and to be continually met with stonewalling, slow-rolling and complacency — even here in MA. We could lead the country, and the world, and could reap the benefits. But our representatives chose not to, on our behalf.
In the context of our planetary and local crises, this was failure, pure and simple. We got rolled.
Once again, our “Democrats” are more concerned with “businessmen” than any other citizens of the Commonwealth. Sure, we got rolled, just like we got rolled on the last vote to take away bonus pay for the working class on Sundays and holidays….it’s all about business.
We can’t lead the nation in health care legislation, “businessmen” object.
We have to declare a tax free weekend (and agree with the Republican motto that all taxes are bad) because “that’s what businessmen want”.
I share your frustration and disappointment
.
“It’s terrible.”
–(Outgoing) Representative Frank Smizik, Chair of the House Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change.
Smizik was terrible. He’s been a poster boy for paying lip service to various left wing causes, but then falling in line with DeLeo. Can’t be rid of him soon enough.
His committee never met…
So what are Deleo’s objections on the merits? Also, why is there a cap on solar energy at all? There certainly is not a cap on the availability of solar energy.
I think our rep, Sean Garballey, pushes the envelope as much as a progressive can without being relegated to the statehouse dungeon.
You can’t beat this system by leaning on the progressive reps. DeLeo is empowered by the conservative Democrats who encourage the warm and cuddly relationship with Charlie Baker. The way to put an end to this nonsense is for a couple of the folks in leadership to get knocked off in a primary.
I operate under the theory that when Carl Sciortino beat Vinny Ciampa in 2004, the rest of the legislature got religion on marriage equality. Taking out a key rep or two in September would certainly engage the rest of the flock’s self-preservation instincts.
The obvious place to start would be with Nika Elugardo, running against Jeff Sanchez, in Jamaica Plain. That would send Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ripples through the state house. A Sebrina Heisey win over Colleen Garry would be icing on that cake.
Yes and no. Connolly beating Toomey gave Denise Provost another ally, and so far he hasn’t been given the Jonathan Hecht treatment despite his outspoken criticism. Sanchez and Garry losing would send signals, but I also see a culture of people sticking with incumbents no matter what, including many on this blog. I will message my rep Jay Livingston about this, another progressive who has had to play footsie with the Speaker.
The bottom line is that you can’t oust DeLeo until you have a majority of folks to go along with the effort, as an unsuccessful move would resemble the aftermath of the failed coup in Turkey. Taking out Sanchez is just one vote, but it is a shot over the bow of the cowardly legislators who think the status quo keeps them safe from scrutiny.
They don’t have to play footsie with the Speaker. The basement at the Statehouse is only so big. There’s just so many useless reps in there right now it really is a scandal in and of itself. We’ve got to stop pretending our individual reps aren’t so bad and that they’d do progressive things even though their voting records are atrocious. I’m getting a new rep, maybe Stomv, and my voting criteria is are you reading to fight the machine?
Almost every district in Boston should be looking for a new rep. Newton sending Balser and Khan to Beacon Hill, where they fall in line passively behind DeLeo, is madness.
Elugardo beating Sanchez would be a major shot across the bow. It’s not just the energy bill. It’s education funding. It’s the Safe Communities Act. It’s the Great Neighborhoods/housing bill. The sheer amount of inaction in the House demands change. We’ve got state senators ready to move on these issues. We need reps to match them. Replacing a do-nothing rep like Frank Smizik, who’s retiring, is going to help as well.
And Heisey beating Garry would be more than icing. Garry might be the worst, most regressive rep with a nominal D next to her name in all of MA. We’ve got to make her kind scarce. Obviously there won’t be a wholesale.turnover in 2018, but the groundwork for a 2020 wave election needs to be laid. If Garry’s getting bounced out of Dracut, that would rattle a lot of cages.
I say that Heisey is icing, as a Garry defeat would not be seen as a takedown of leadership. It would be a different signal, that Democratic primary voters want Democrats to act like Democrats. If successful, look for primary challenges in 2020 of some of the more conservative house members who get elected on the Democratic line.
A point to note: Tyngsborough and Dracut voted for Bernie in the presidential primary, but both towns voted for Trump in November. This suggests to me that Heisey has a more challenging race ahead of her in November if (as I expect) she prevails in the primary.
A suburban rep who is a strong, pro-choice leader in the House defended DeLeo to me on the basis that he is ‘beloved’ by the caucus for forcing the conservative members to take ‘tough votes’. She cited the ‘trans rights’ bill as an example of a ‘tough vote’ since so many reps only heard from their conservative constituents on that issue. Or the gun control bill which DeLeo cites on his website and Facebook page as one of his proudest accomplishments. So he gets to say he is keeping the right wing of the caucus at bay to maintain the left wings loyalty. When open progressive opponents are limited to a handful, it is easier for him to single them out for punishment as well.
A big part of our problem is that the local right wing grassroots does a better job lobbying Beacon Hill than the left does, My friends in DSA love protesting ICE at the downtown detention center, but have been total no shows in helping Nika primary Sanchez. They love walking the picket line with striking Eversource workers, but made zero phone calls to save holiday overtime. That is part of the lefts problem in not committing wholeheartedly to electoral politics since its more fun to protest or limit campaigning to sexier offices like presidential campaigns. State legislatures such as ours could be petri dishes to show a skeptical America that more social democratic policies could actually work. I really hope PM and OR keep up the pressure, since DSA is dropping the ball.
The right also had longtime allies within the majority like Miceli, Rodgers, and Garry force their priorities on the leadership. So forcing the Garry’s and Rodger’s of the world to either give up their parking spaces and run as the Republicans they are or lose their seats is not the worst thing in the world. Absolutely getting scalps like Sanchez will make an even bigger impression. I would also point out the strong campaign Gerly Adrien is running in Everett to take out another do nothing DeLeocrat in Joe McGonagle. Like Toomey, another under the radar backbencher with strong local roots who can be beaten by a newcomer.
That’s the key to this and so many other bad Democratic votes – it’s not about protecting their seat, it’s about voting conservative because it’s what the politician personally believes. As Charley says, you think any of these reps would get voted out of office for backing more clean energy? Or that any Democrat would get voted out for demanding Trump put up a centrist SCOTUS justice rather than a far-right extremist like Kavanaugh? Or that any Democrat anywhere would get voted out for backing a $15/hour minimum wage?
Of course not. In most cases, those “Democrats” really are voting their conscience. They just don’t care enough to fight the corporate/billionaire/corporate billionaire dollars that will be spent against them.