Opponents of legislation to address climate change in Massachusetts are no longer denying the problem but are blocking measures through “discourses of delay,” according to a new study by researchers at Brown University, which recommends the state “rein in” utilities’ lobbying.

The study by the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, looked at 245 pieces of climate and clean energy legislation in Massachusetts from 2013 to 2018, only 43 of which made it out of committee and only nine of which passed. Based on the lobbying records for the bills, the researchers identified four “interest group coalitions” that regularly oppose climate policy: utilities; fossil and chemical companies; real estate companies; and fossil fuel power generation companies.

Massachusetts was among the first in the U.S. to act on climate change with the 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act, which called for an 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050. But other states have enacted more ambitious targets since then, the report’s authors say. On Thursday, lawmakers again approved a bill vetoed Jan. 14 by Gov. Charlie Baker (R) that would require an 85% emissions cut from 1990 levels by 2050. (See Mass. Lawmakers Pass Next-Gen Climate Bill, Again.)

“Public opinion is not the barrier to climate policies in Massachusetts,” the authors said. “Rather, leadership’s tight control over the House, the process of handling bills, the openness to lobbying in which corporations far outspend environmental and social advocates, and the lack of transparency together create a hostile environment for ambitious climate legislation. When the Massachusetts legislature has advanced climate and energy policy, it has been in spite of, not because of, these factors.”

Those who testified publicly against climate policies said they supported climate action while opposing the specific policy proposal, according to the report, which named four tactics:

• • • “Policy perfectionism,” in which opponents call for well-crafted solutions that are supported by all affected parties;
    • Appeals to social justice that focus on the burdensome costs of climate action on low-income and minority residents;
    • “Fossil-fuel solutionism,” suggesting the fossil fuel industry should be recognized for already leading the way on reducing emissions via energy efficiency and lower-carbon fuels;
    • “Premature success-ism,” where existing climate targets are held up as ambitious enough to resolve climate change issues.

The study said the pervasive usage of those four tactics among opponents of new climate legislation was “striking” and “subtle,” and proponents of climate policy must understand them.

Lobbying Spending

Utilities, the report said, were the highest spenders on lobbying activities, with Eversource and National Grid together spending about $3.5 million on lobbying during the study years. They were frequently allied with the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, which spent more than $2 million over the period. By comparison, two of the most active climate and energy lobbyists for the same period, the Environmental League of Massachusetts and Clean Water Action, together spent about $500,000.

The two utilities were most often in favor of legislation that promoted large-scale hydropower and wind energy, but they took an aggressive stance against solar, which they said in public testimony is too expensive.

Hydro and wind projects “would result in substantial contracts for the state’s largest utilities,” while solar is “decentralized on residential and commercial rooftops and therefore … cuts into electric utilities’ revenues,” the report said.

The report said that, in terms of the climate legislation they support, utilities appear to be the most successful lobbyists of the active groups in the state during the study period.

“The bills [National Grid and Eversource] opposed were most likely to fail, while they also saw the most success in getting bills passed that they supported,” the report said.

An Eversource spokesperson said in a statement that the report oversimplifies the challenges of creating a clean energy future.

“We are actively involved in collaborating with legislators and stakeholders to share views on how we can create an affordable, clean energy future,” the spokesperson said. “That legislative process, designed to generate ideas and debate, often means a large number of bills are introduced at the start, with a few that end up being adopted.”

The study researchers noted that solar, hydro and wind energy companies were active on legislation specific to their industries but rarely lobbied for broader bills to tighten greenhouse gas reduction targets and institute a carbon tax.  “Only two solar companies, and no hydro or wind companies, recorded any lobbying on these bills.”

Utilities’ control over the electric grid, “can act as a deterrent against public opposition from renewable energy companies,” the report said. “Utilities were cited by renewables developers as threatening delays in hook-ups if green energy firms took positions contrary to theirs.”

A National Grid spokesperson told RTO Insider in a statement that, as a regulated utility, the company abides “by the multistep interconnection guidelines overseen by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities.”

Recommendations

The report recommends increasing the legislature’s transparency by making committee hearings and written testimony accessible via the Internet, requiring more detailed reporting of lobbying activities and requiring floor votes be conducted by roll call.

Clean energy organizations should increase their own lobbying efforts while utilities should be restricted, the authors said. “These are state-regulated monopolies, who should not be able to use ratepayer funds to lobby at the Statehouse.”

The spokespersons for Eversource and National Grid said the companies’ lobbying expenses are not paid for by customers.

Scrutiny of utilities’ lobbying is not new. Some utilities that sought to recover Edison Electric Institute (EEI) membership dues have been challenged in their rate cases because of EEI’s lobbying activities.

A 2017 Energy and Policy Institute (EPI) report recommended that regulators demand that utilities demonstrate how ratepayer funds used for lobbying or political influence benefit ratepayers. The Paying for Utility Politics report points to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners as the appropriate place for oversight of lobbying costs allocation among utilities. (See Public Affairs Activism: Astroturf, Secret Donors and ‘Swampetition’.)

Matt Kasper, research director at EPI, and a co-author of the report, told RTO Insider that there has not been a unified effort from regulators on the recommendations made in the report. “It’s been a piecemeal approach,” he said.

In 2019, the California Public Utilities Commission refused to allow Southern California Edison to shift nearly $2 million in EEI dues to ratepayers. Regulators said the company did not provide enough evidence to determine how much EEI’s services should cost ratepayers.