The legislature has made some important progress in combating gas leaks over the last couple of sessions. The state adopted major gas leaks legislation in 2014 which created a gas leaks registry and a three tiered classification system to prioritize and mandate repairs for the two larger classes of leaks. As part of the 2016 energy bill, the state now requires gas distribution companies to repair grade 3 leaks, when road construction exposes such a leak.
There are several bills before the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy relative to oil and gas infrastructure and gas leaks that have been filed this session which may be of interest to advocates. I have grouped them into broad categories below:
Consumer and Ratepayer Protection:
H.1728, An Act relating to consumer protections in the sale and usage of propane gas. This bill would regulate the sale of propane.
S.1850, An Act relative to the protection of propane gas ratepayers. This bill would regulate propane contracts.
H.1760, An Act to establish a home heating commission. This bill would create a Home Heating Commission to study options to reduce heating costs and greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency in residential buildings.
H.1767, An Act regarding Chapter 30A. This bill would allow a municipality within the service area of the electric or gas company, any
member of the general court whose district includes ratepayers of such company, and any group of not less than 10 persons who are ratepayers of the company to be recognized as a full party for any petition, request for approval, or investigation of a gas or electric company in an adjudicatory proceeding under the state administrative procedure law.
H.1769, An Act prohibiting electric customer support for gas pipeline expansion. This bill would make changes to the DPU contract review statute consistent with the SJC ENGIE Gas & LNG LLC v. DPU decision.
H.2685, An Act further regulating utility contracts. This bill would make changes to the DPU contract review statute consistent with the SJC ENGIE Gas & LNG LLC v. DPU decision.
H.2698/S.1855, An Act protecting ratepayers from gas pipeline expansion costs. This bill would prohibit DPU from approving any contract for the purchase of gas, gas pipeline capacity or liquefied gas storage where any costs would be recoverable from the ratepayers if the contract requires any construction or expansion of interstate gas infrastructure.
S.1868, An Act relative to the impact of natural gas transfer facilities on public health. This bill would establish a moratorium on the issuance of permits for hydraulic fracturing of natural gas in the state and directs UMass to conduct a comprehensive health impacts analysis of the potential public health impacts that could be caused by the extraction, transportation, or compression of natural gas.
Energy Facilities Siting:
H.1736/S.1859, An Act relative to the Energy Facilities Siting Board. This bill would require the Energy Facilities Siting Board consider the public health impacts on the well being of neighbors of new projects.
H.1753/S.1891, An Act regulating the location of pipelines. This bill would prohibit construction of a new transmission pipeline within 1 mile of a playground, licensed day-care center, school, church, area of critical environmental concern, or an area occupied by residential housing.
H.1754/S.1888, An Act redefining natural gas compressor station. This bill would restrict natural gas compressor stations to industrial zoning districts.
H.3391, An Act relative to the energy facilities siting board. This bill would expand the membership of the Energy Facilities Siting Board to include a member with experience in public health and require the board to consider public health impacts when reviewing new projects.
S.1852, An Act relative to natural gas pipeline surveys. This bill would restrict preliminary surveys for natural gas pipeline companies unless the company has already been issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity under federal law.
S.1872, An Act relative to pipeline siting. This bill would prohibit s DPU from approving any new gas pipeline or storage capacity if such infrastructure is sited on land protected under Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution. If such a facility is sited on Article 97 land, this section voids any DPU approval of related contracts.
H.3400/S.1847, An Act clarifying authority and responsibilities of the department of public utilities. This bill incorporates language and concepts from a number of other bills relative to pipeline expansion.
Gas Leaks:
H.2683/S.1845, An Act relative to protecting consumers of gas and electricity from paying for leaked and unaccounted for gas. This bill would reduce the amount of lost and unaccounted for gas that may be passed along to consumers via DPU rate setting to zero over the course of 6 years.
H.3637, An Act relative to conservation and natural gas infrastructure. This bill would require a utility to recapture an equivalent volume of natural gas lost from the system by repairing identified gas leaks within a municipality prior to adding pipeline capacity in the same municipality. If all identified leaks in a municipality have been repaired, the gas company shall pursue alternative conservation measures within the municipality region.
Natural Gas Transmission:
H.1752/S.1890, An Act Regulating Pipelines. This bill would require that any natural gas that travels through a transmission gas line in Massachusetts must be used only in Massachusetts.
Other:
H.1742, An Act relative to emergency backup power at gasoline stations. This bill would require backup power at all all service stations which operate for 24 hours and advertise on the highway, so that they are able to dispense fuel during an emergency.
S.1838, An Act ensuring the safety of residents, first responders, and gas workers. This bill would provide for additional safety measures during gas construction projects.
S.1843, An Act further promoting energy efficiency and green jobs. This bill would create the Oil Heat Energy Efficiency Fund, which would provide financial incentives for residential customers and small businesses to improve energy efficiency and reduce oil consumption.
S.1863, An Act relative to the sale of natural gas as a motor fuel. This bill would regulate the sale of natural gas as a special fuel, subject to taxation and dispensed in gasoline/diesel gallon equivalents.
Andrew Bettinelli
Chief of Staff
Office of State Senator William N. Brownsberger
The legislation concerning Gas Leaks is particularly important, as is that pertaining to Natural Gas Transmission. Please support them, and thanks for this useful list.
I agree with Martin Roetter’s questions about whether these bills in any way move us forward toward the State and City goals of reducing CHG emissions and use. It is becoming increasingly urgent that we keep moving toward renewable energy sources such as wind and solar – NOT nuclear – . Thus it seems contraindicated to continue to invest in and use legislative time to work on bills which seem to assume the long-term use of fracked gas.
Thanks Will & Andrew! I’m glad to see such much needed consideration going into these matters. I wonder if it might not have been more efficient to wrap all this up in one omnibus bill, but hey those judgement calls are your specialty not mine. The only thing I would encourage you to emphasize more is reducing our dependency on oil & natural gas infrastructure by somehow assisting multifamily structures (triple-deckers!) with the difficult logistics of deep energy retrofits; this is probably the most challenging and yet cost-effective thing that needs to happen at scale for the greater Boston area to become net zero-carbon.
Thank you for this useful compilation. We are particularly interested in limiting expansion of pipeline infrastructure to fuel large development projects.
Thank you for this compilation. It would be helpful to understand if there are any contradictions between the provisions within these 22 bills (what is the appropriate collective noun – a gaggle, a pride, a flock…) or whether they are all complementary and mutually reinforcing. I also wonder to what extent they refer to and will help us meet the targets that have been set for the Commonwealth (and Boston) for reductions in GHG emissions. I note that new developments in Boston such as One Dalton and the Winthrop Square Tower as currently planned involve extensions of or additions to gas pipeline infrastructure to meet their demands for energy.
The bills I feel the strongest that should be passed:
H 1769
H2698/S 1855
S 1868
H 1736/ S 1859
H 1753/ S 1891
H 3391
S1872
H 2683/ S 1845
H 3637
I think it is so very dangerous and bad for our environment that the utility companies have been able to profit from inefficient and poorly maintained pipelines. Why have leaks been tolerated for so long, and rate payers asked to cover the costs?
These fixes should be enacted.
In the future safety, public health, and alternative energy choices must be important considerations.
Wow, what a stack of natural gas related bills.
As a passionate advocate for the planting and preservation of urban shade trees, I would especially advocate for H.2683/S.1845 and H.3637.
Street trees are vitally important contributors to urban health and well-being. Subterranean natural gas leaks are a known factor in the death of street trees.
Would like these bills to pass to help make sure natural gas leaks are rigorously eliminated, to reduce the atmospheric carbon burden and to save precious urban street trees.
Many of these bills look very helpful, and some are essential. However, several of the bills seem to be designed purely to slow/obstruct delivery of natural gas to customers (I guess to force those customers to purchase more expensive competing sources of energy?) without any balancing benefit to citizens of the Commonwealth e.g. S.1891, S.1852, S.1890. I strongly oppose those bills.
It is important to keep in mind that natural gas is the most important (and least expensive) heating fuel and also the main source of electricity in the Commonwealth. Currently, the main competing energy source is petroleum: if gas is not available because of insufficient pipeline capacity, as during the recent cold snap, we are burning more expensive oil instead to produce our electricity, that is not really an environmental nor economic benefit.
A smart way to tilt the marketplace towards lower-polluting sources of energy, and to increase the incentive for investments to increase energy efficiency, would be to impose a carbon tax in the Commonwealth. This could be made revenue-neutral, returning all the taxes obtained either directly to taxpayers with a check, or by increasing exemptions or lower tax rates. The tax could start small and automatically increase a little every year to give businesses and people time to make decisions (e.g. to improve the insulation in their houses or install heat pumps, or to buy more energy efficient cars).
I strongly support that shift costs of natural gas leaks back to the companies and away from the payers; it creates an important incentive for energy companies to make timely repairs and perform regular maintenance. In addition, S.1843 and H.1760 cover the importance of energy efficiency. I have personal experience with the significant difference in energy costs (and overall comfort) between a well insulated building on a shaded street versus poorly insulated and exposed. Studying better designs and implementing them are the smart way to be efficient and better for the environment.
Dear Sen. Brownsberger,
Thank you for creating this list of oil and gas related bills! I would like to share the following comments:
H.1760, An Act to establish a home heating commission. This bill would create a Home Heating Commission to study options to reduce heating costs and greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency in residential buildings.
This is a great idea and includes a strong cross section of members. I hope that it is successfully established. I noticed that although this bill pertains to residential buildings, there is no mandated member who works with the Office of Public Safety and Inspections or is necessarily some kind of engineer who works daily with buildings/construction. It seems like it would be important to have someone like that included in the decisions of a commission like the one proposed.
H.2698/S.1855, An Act protecting ratepayers from gas pipeline expansion costs. This bill would prohibit DPU from approving any contract for the purchase of gas, gas pipeline capacity or liquefied gas storage where any costs would be recoverable from the ratepayers if the contract requires any construction or expansion of interstate gas infrastructure.
I think this kind of consumer protection is important and necessary and have lived in places where it does not exist and costs were much higher for customers. When a company does expand gas capacity, etc. I wonder how effective enforcement of this would work in practice, since a company could raise rates and claim that it is for some other reason than its gas capacity expansion and move numbers around on its financial statements (regarding costs of new gas expansion) so that the financials justify their claim of raising rates for some reason other than gas capacity expansion.
H.1753/S.1891, An Act regulating the location of pipelines. This bill would prohibit construction of a new transmission pipeline within 1 mile of a playground, licensed day-care center, school, church, area of critical environmental concern, or an area occupied by residential housing.
I agree with the spirit of this bill, but am concerned by its specificity. This kind of specificity is what businesses prefer because it creates more loopholes for them. For example, what about hospitals and rehabilitation centers? Are aquifers and drinking water supply areas considered “areas of critical environmental concern”? State and national parks? Is any religious gathering space or community center considered to be a “church”? Is an “area occupied by residential housing” any single house, or does this have to do with a certain population density of the area? One could argue that the whole state of MA has too high of a population density to justify any new transmission pipelines. What about correctional facilities (just because someone is incarcerated doesn’t mean they should be unduly exposed to potentially toxic environmental hazards)?
What about offshore pipelines from the federal government’s proposed drilling? Moreover, what about offshore pipelines in relation to islands, shipping routes, whale and other animal migratory routes, and location of existing and proposed wind/renewable energy farms? I think it would be great to have state legislation that specifically conflicts with the current presidential administration’s plans for fracking and drilling off shore. Massachusetts should do all it can to prevent further pollution and degradation of our coastline.
H.1736/S.1859, An Act relative to the Energy Facilities Siting Board. This bill would require the Energy Facilities Siting Board consider the public health impacts on the well being of neighbors of new projects.
H.3391, An Act relative to the energy facilities siting board. This bill would expand the membership of the Energy Facilities Siting Board to include a member with experience in public health and require the board to consider public health impacts when reviewing new projects.
These proposed bills provide exciting and overdue developments! Public health should always be considered in conversations about energy, environment, and emergency preparedness. Including public health is also a great way to be able to consider the environmental justice implications of a particular decision: how racially/ethnically and economically marginalized and vulnerable groups will be impacted.
H.2683/S.1845, An Act relative to protecting consumers of gas and electricity from paying for leaked and unaccounted for gas. This bill would reduce the amount of lost and unaccounted for gas that may be passed along to consumers via DPU rate setting to zero over the course of 6 years.
H.3637, An Act relative to conservation and natural gas infrastructure. This bill would require a utility to recapture an equivalent volume of natural gas lost from the system by repairing identified gas leaks within a municipality prior to adding pipeline capacity in the same municipality. If all identified leaks in a municipality have been repaired, the gas company shall pursue alternative conservation measures within the municipality region.
Both of the above bills appear to be great consumer protections and are obligating businesses to use their resources more efficiently.
H.1752/S.1890, An Act Regulating Pipelines. This bill would require that any natural gas that travels through a transmission gas line in Massachusetts must be used only in Massachusetts.
Has anyone looked into how this legislation, if enacted, would interact with legislation in the states that border ours? I wonder if any of them currently depend, or at some point in the near future might depend, on gas coming from somewhere else and traveling through MA to get to them. If so, would that set up a potential future lawsuit? I am all in favor of disincentives for combustion-based/fossil fuels, and therefore of the bill, but it would be interesting to know, since it could require some other future action or resources.
S.1843, An Act further promoting energy efficiency and green jobs. This bill would create the Oil Heat Energy Efficiency Fund, which would provide financial incentives for residential customers and small businesses to improve energy efficiency and reduce oil consumption.
This appears to be basically a tax on oil purchases by small businesses and residential customers that would then go back to them in the form of energy efficiency programs. I didn’t see MassSave mentioned anywhere in the bill, which from what I understand forms a clearinghouse for MA energy efficiency programs and incentives and is a nexus between the public, private, and NGO sectors. I like the idea of creating another source of revenue for energy efficiency to help people reduce dependence on oil, but wonder if the fund could be better integrated into existing infrastructure for management of energy efficiency projects.
It looks like whatever revenues are generated for this fund would go back out to businesses and consumers, but does it get invested in the meantime to accrue interest and create a larger pool of money for energy efficiency? I have the same question about other similar funds that already exist.