Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) vetoed a wide-ranging climate bill Thursday, saying he needed more time to scrutinize the details of the legislation and recommend changes.

“While I support the bill’s goals and am largely in agreement with many of its proposals, 35 hours was not enough time to review and suggest amendments to such complex legislation,” he wrote in a letter to lawmakers explaining his decision.

The bill, which overwhelming passed both the state House and Senate, was sent to Baker’s desk just before the end of the two-year legislative session and would have provided the state another path to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The law would have required Massachusetts to reduce emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2030, 75% by 2040 and 85% by 2050. It also called for utilities to procure an additional 2,400 MW of offshore wind power, raising the state’s total to 5,600 MW. (See Mass. Lawmakers Pass Sweeping Climate Law.)

Baker recently released his own legally binding plan to achieve net-zero emissions in the same time frame, and additionally joined with Connecticut, Rhode Island and D.C. in launching the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P), which aims to cut greenhouse gases from vehicles and invest in cleaner transportation choices and public health improvements. (See NE States, DC Sign MOU to Cut Transportation Pollution.)

Among the specific reasons Baker cited in his veto was the climate bill working against recently enacted Housing Choice legislation. He added there is “nothing in this bill to adapt to the ongoing and future impacts of climate change.

“If we intend to comprehensively address climate change, we must give ourselves and our colleagues in local government the tools necessary to create a Commonwealth that is more resilient to the destructive weather events and natural disasters we continue to face because of ongoing climate change,” Baker said.

The governor said that while his administration “wholeheartedly supports the environmental justice goals of this bill, intent without the tools to address those issues are empty promises.”

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) said Baker’s veto was an “unnecessary and disappointing move.” It said the legislation would have strengthened the state’s carbon emissions goals.

“A lot of really good thinking from a whole lot of perspectives went into shaping this bill, and it has so many important pieces,” said Paula García, senior bilingual energy analyst at UCS.

“The governor said he vetoed the bill in part because it would slow housing production. This is a false choice,” she said. “We can address climate change and housing needs simultaneously.”

According to a UCS study, about 7,000 residential properties, currently home to roughly 14,000 people in Massachusetts, are at risk because of rising sea levels by 2045. The total number of at-risk residential properties jumps to more than 89,000 — 178,000 people — by 2100.

“While Massachusetts has a network of shoreline stabilization structures along its coast, few of these are designed to keep out higher tides,” García said. “And we know that people of color suffer disproportionately from climate impacts.”

She said Baker’s action “is a horrible lost opportunity to stop perpetuating environmental injustices.”

“Being a whole lot bolder about our climate trajectory is something we need now,” García said. “Faster clean energy progress is incredibly important — for addressing our enormous public health challenges, getting the economy back on track and making sure that we’re bringing every tool to bear to dismantle systemic injustices.”

Dan Dolan, president of the New England Power Generators Association (NEPGA), said his organization “strongly supports the need for collective, economy-wide action to meet the climate challenge.”

“A reliable, cost-competitive and clean electricity grid is vital to driving deep decarbonization across the economy, and New England’s competitive electricity generators stand ready to power that future,” Dolan said. “Now is an opportunity to revisit a bill passed in the waning hours of an unprecedented legislative session.”

He added that “to most efficiently drive carbon reductions, the legislature should enact a meaningful, multisector price on carbon emissions.”

“This focus on the actual cause of climate change can create a sustainable and durable marketplace to meet our climate responsibilities,” Dolan said. “NEPGA urges the legislature to focus on this approach and not continue its reliance on decades-long contracts that undermine the innovation, competition and consumer benefits of the New England-wide electricity market.”

‘Clarion Call’

Baker told the legislature his administration does not want to choose “clean energy winners and losers” and should “let resources compete in a manner that delivers the most benefit at the least cost to Massachusetts ratepayers.”

In October, Baker, along with governors from Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island and Vermont, jointly released a statement arguing that ISO-NE was frustrating regional and state efforts to reduce economy-wide GHG emissions. The governors called for reforms to the RTO’s market designs, transmission planning and governance. (See New England Governors Call for RTO Reform.)

Baker told legislators that he wants to “allow this process to reform our regional energy system to mature over the coming months, at which point we will better understand whether further state procurements are necessary, or if opportunities for regional procurements and coordination emerge as a more effective approach to secure clean energy resources while protecting Massachusetts ratepayers.”

Dolan said that portion of Baker’s letter goes directly to the broader point NEPGA has been raising regarding the impact of long-term contracts.

“NEPGA applauds Gov. Baker’s clarion call to drive the next evolution of the regional electricity market to meet the clean energy and climate needs of New England while preserving reliability through competitive markets,” he said.

Dolan said NEPGA is committed “to engaging with the states to shape the future of the electricity market,” and it urges Massachusetts lawmakers to do the same with their regional counterparts.

“The efficiency and cost gains by pursuing this regional vision is consistent with scores of reports and analysis from academic and industry experts — and the states themselves,” he said.

Concluded García: “Massachusetts can and should do more, and we need to be as bold as we can be. With the speaker of the House and the Senate president committed to reintroducing the legislation, we’re not back at square one on this legislation. But at this point, we should be across the finish line.”