By Jamie Eldridge and Frank I. Smizik

This week, the Massachusetts House and Senate have an amazing opportunity to build on the Commonwealth’s energy policy foundation so that our energy economy can continue on its path as an emerging world player in the clean-energy industry — and ensure Massachusetts energy consumers a secure, reliable and affordable energy future.

Massachusetts is the number one state in the country for energy efficiency policy, and clean energy is the most rapidly growing sector in the state. The clean energy industry now employs over 64,000 people in jobs ranging from manufacturing and construction to sales and services, and these jobs are local.

Globally, clean energy investment grew 5 percent in 2011 to hit a record $260 billion, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. As a leader in clean energy, Massachusetts is competing in an important international industry, succeeding in attracting clean energy companies and investment. Because of the Commonwealth’s energy policies, companies are coming to Massachusetts, bringing jobs and economic development with them. Massachusetts was also second in the nation in attracting venture capital investment in the clean energy sector.

These economic benefits did not occur by chance. Leadership from the Legislature and the Patrick administration — through the 2008 Green Communities Act — has shortened the payback period for renewable and energy efficiency projects, making it possible for businesses, municipalities, and families to adopt clean energy. Across the state, people are saving energy and money, deploying efficiency and renewables, and keeping the air cleaner. These actions take pressure off the power grid and reduce energy costs.

Related

• More from The Podium

The energy bill currently in conference in the Legislature would cement and increase these economic benefits. Among other key provisions, it would raise a limit on “net metering” — a practice that is crucial to encouraging more small-scale solar and wind projects.

Under existing law, homeowners with solar panels get credit at the retail price of electricity for the amount of power they put back into the grid. But there’s a cap, which Massachusetts is about to hit, on how much power is eligible. The new law would raise the cap, encouraging these projects by letting more businesses and homeowners who generate power from renewables sell excess energy at a favorable price. (Net metering provides additional customer savings by reducing overall costs during times of peak energy demand.)

The energy bill would also expand long-term contracting for renewable energy projects, reducing financing costs for developers. Consumers would benefit from the decrease as these reduced costs are passed on to them in the form of lower energy prices. Consumers are already saving money on their energy bills because of Massachusetts’ forward-thinking energy policies. The average household has saved $38 per month on its energy bills since the passage of the Green Communities Act. It’s time to take advantage of low natural gas prices and the clean energy programs already in place to make sure those savings continue. The energy bill under consideration will build on the Green Communities Act, allowing Massachusetts to keep its clean-energy economy growing, in turn helping the Commonwealth in reaching its renewable energy goal of 20 percent by 2020.

Beacon Hill has delivered on creating a leading clean energy economy for Massachusetts. This is a critical moment to move it forward, and make Massachusetts not only a leader in New England and in the United States, but in a thriving international marketplace. We urge our colleagues in the House and Senate to pass the energy bill, and Governor Deval Patrick to sign it.

Senator Jamie Eldridge represents the Middlesex and Worcester District. Representative Frank I. Smizik, represents the 15th Norfolk District and is chairman of the House Committee on Climate Change. Eldridge and Smizik chair the Green Economy Caucus in the Massachusetts Legislature.

By State Senator Jamie Eldridge & Former State Senator Pam Resor

For over 20 years, the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) has helped ensure the continued survival of the Commonwealth’s most imperiled plant and animal species. One of the most important and effective environmental laws in the Commonwealth, MESA protects 176 species of animals and 256 species of native plants that are officially listed as Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern. Protecting these species is critical to preserving the natural habitat, open spaces, and beautiful lakes, rivers and streams that are a key quality of life for Massachusetts residents, not to mention a primary driver of the state’s tourism industry.

Unfortunately, a small group of developers has been trying to destroy this law. This growing movement is attempting to gut the Endangered Species Act by passing legislation (S1854, “An Act Relative to Land Takings”), that would limit the authority of the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program by taking away their ability to protect endangered species and their habitats, except in very limited circumstances. The bill is opposed by a wide swath of conservation and sportsmen groups, including Mass Audubon, the Sierra Club, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Sportsmen’s Council and the Gun Owners Action League.

Habitat loss and increased pressures from poorly planned development, pollution and the impacts of a changing climate are all putting some species in Massachusetts at risk of extinction. Although extinctions occur naturally as a consequence of evolution, humans have accelerated this rate by hundreds, if not thousands, of times. Now, more than ever, we need strong, well-enforced law to protect our natural environment.

“An Act Relative to Land Takings” would take us in the exact opposite direction. This proposed law would place burdensome, unprecedented requirements on the Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, which enforces MESA, that would effectively undo current protections, and inject uncertainty, delays and unnecessary conflict in the project review process. This law would create an unworkable, prohibitively expensive and unnecessarily complicated system — and make the Endangered Species Act essentially unenforceable.

No program ever works perfectly, but since its passage in 1991, the Endangered Species Protection program has worked remarkably well — and when problems have come up, the Division of Fisheries & Wildlife has proven flexible and willing to make regulatory adjustments. Gutting the law is not the solution.

Proponents of S1854 argue that the endangered species screening process is an impediment to development. In fact, DFW’s current regulatory system has a proven track record of protecting state-listed endangered species while allowing development to proceed.

The vast majority — nearly 80 percent — of projects that go through the screening process proceed as planned. The rest require some mitigation or simple project modifications to protect endangered species before moving forward. Effective development is not incompatible with environmental protection, but it does require thoughtful planning and awareness of potential problems and ways to avoid those problems. This is precisely what our current endangered species protection program does, and it should be preserved.

“An Act Relative to Land Takings” would roll back 20 years of protections afforded by MESA to the Commonwealth’s most vulnerable native plants and animals. It should be rejected by the Legislature. Massachusetts has never stood for the simplistic aim of uncontrolled development, and it shouldn’t start now.

Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, serves as State Senator for the Middlesex & Worcester District. Pam Resor represented the same Senate district from 1999 to 2008.

It’s been almost twenty years since we last updated our voter registration process, and so much has changed since then. These days, the news doesn’t stop, communication is instant, and search engines provide information at the click of a button. The state government has made great strides in keeping up with this trend, and residents can now renew their drivers’ licenses or access many state services online, saving taxpayers both time and money as RMV lines shrink and paperwork becomes electronic. Registering to vote should be just as easy, and technology allows us to do so while maintaining security, saving money, and increasing accessibility.

This session I’m proud to have sponosored An Act to Modernize Voter Registration, which would make it easier for eligible citizens to register to vote and ensure the accuracy of our voter lists by allowing citizens to register to vote online, ensuring that our voting lists stay up to date when voters move, allowing 16 and 17 year old citizens to pre-register to vote, and allowing eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day.

In the last presidential election, more than 10,000 Massachusetts residents were denied the right to vote because they had not registered at least twenty days before the election. There’s no good reason for these citizens to have been blocked from participating – except for our outdated voter registration laws.

Same-day voter registration has worked successfully for three decades in Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and for almost two decades in New Hampshire, Idaho and Wyoming. In the past few years, same-day registration has also spread to Iowa, Montana and Wisconsin.  There’s no reason it couldn’t work just as well here in Massachusetts.

Allowing online voter registration will also help increase voter turnout and engagement – particularly among young people. Citizens between the ages of 18 and 30 have some of the lowest voter registration rates – and 95% of them are frequently online.  Allowing online registration and same-day registration will help foster a new generation of citizens actively engaged in our democracy.

It can also help save money. The average cost to register a voter in the United States is about $4, but in Canada, which allows for electronic registration, the cost is about $0.35. Arizona, one of several states that offers online voter registration, saves more than 90% per voter registered online. With the budget constraints currently facing the Commonwealth, every dollar saved in voter registration costs will help preserve vital programs.

Each year, about one in ten people in Massachusetts will move to another residence, where they will need to reregister to vote. This process could be made easier and more efficient by enacting “Permanent Registration,” which would let our Central Voter Registry get updated the same way businesses update their mailing lists, using data from the US Postal Service and the Registry of Motor Vehicles to make sure people are registered where they actually live – saving hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual costs.

Finally, we should enact “Pre-Registration,” which would allow young adults who will be eighteen by Election Day to register as early as age seventeen. Doing so would encourage civic participation among our youth and help students prepare for Election Day by making sure they’re registered before Election Day and before some of them head off to college.

Voting is one of our most important rights and duties of citizenship, and it’s vital that our voter registration process is both accessible and effective. By enacting these reforms, we will modernize our voting system and empower more citizens to participate while protecting and advancing the hallmark of our democratic system.

February 1, 2012
By State Senator Jamie Eldridge (Guest Columnist)

Over the past few years, frustration with the increasing power that corporations have on our political system has been growing across the country.

Whether it has been the debate over healthcare reform, financial reform and consumer protection, or clean air and water regulations, we’ve seen time and time again the very real impact corporate lobbyists and political spending have on our policymaking process, with corporate profits trumping the needs of average people over and over.

This problem was made worse two years ago, in January 2010, with the misguided and destructive Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs FEC. The decision struck down bipartisan legislation that had limited corporations from spending their general treasury funds on political advertisements. Now, for-profit corporations may spend unlimited amounts of their general treasury funds to influence elections at all levels of government and set the political agenda through anonymous, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns.

The danger is real: if Exxon Mobil had spent just 2 percent of its 2008 profits in the last presidential election, it would have outspent McCain and Obama combined.

In fact, we are already seeing the effects of the Citizens United decision on our elections. Just this month, Las Vegas casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson and his wife spent $10 million to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential bid. Super PACs — the political fundraising groups created in the wake of Citizens United — have already spent $28.5 million (and counting) on advertising in the Republican presidential campaign. At this point, Super PACs are overtaking the candidates themselves!

The danger of undue corporate influence isn’t only for national elections. Indeed, the biggest danger to our democracy might be at the local level. A large developer seeking a change in a local zoning law, for example, could spend tens of thousands of dollars to influence a board of selectman race — small peanuts to the company, perhaps, but a substantial amount of money for that small local race. A selectman who opposed the company could never compete financially with the flood of advertising.

Corporate lobbyists and other powerful special interests are now able to threaten public officials at all levels with the possibility of unending negative campaign ads if their agendas are not supported — and the voices of ordinary citizens are at risk of being drowned out of the electoral process as a result.

I am troubled by the growing role of money — and especially corporate money — in politics for one simple reason: I believe that democracy should not be for sale. As the only Clean Elections candidate ever elected to public office in Massachusetts history, I understand the critical need to reduce the influence of special interest money on elections. In my time as a legislator, I have continued to fight the influence of money in our political system because it breeds corruption and takes power away from ordinary citizens.

Working with a coalition of good government and voting rights organizations, I’ve filed several pieces of legislation to address the problems created by the Citizens United decision.

In the short-term, I have proposed S304: An Act Relative to Disclosure of Political Spending, which would require corporations spending money in Massachusetts to disclose their political spending and identify themselves in advertisements that they fund. Additionally, I have filed S305: An Act Relative to Accountability for Corporate Political Spending, which would require corporations chartered in Massachusetts to receive prior approval from the board of directors before committing funds for political purposes, and to notify shareholders of those expenditures.

These bills would address some of the negative impacts of the Supreme Court decision here in Massachusetts. But ultimately, the only effective long-term solution is to pass a constitutional amendment, such as the one filed by Congressman Jim McGovern of Worcester, overturning the decision reached in Citizens United and restoring our ability to regulate corporate political spending. To this end, I’ve filed S722: A Resolution Restoring Free Speech, which, if passed, would call upon Congress to send such a constitutional amendment to the states.

Amending the constitution would make it clear that corporations are not people and are not guaranteed the same constitutional rights as we are. As citizens, we think about what is best for our country, our communities and our children. Corporations, on the other hand, are abstract legal entities created for people to conduct business with each other. They exist for the sole purpose of making profit — not creating a better society for all Americans. Their loyalties are to their shareholders and not the broader public.

By enacting these reforms we can ensure that elections are truly decided by “we the people,” and not corporate special interests.

State Senator Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, can be reached at 617-722-1120 or email him at James.Eldridge@MASenate.gov.

Of all the unsettling information we’ve gained from the Sal DiMasi trial, one takeaway has been unsurprising: On Beacon Hill, money talks.

The only difference is that typically, money used to influence the legislative process flows through legal channels. Take two scenarios:

A legislator writes and passes a law, personally pocketing thousands of dollars in kickbacks from the company the law benefits. This is what Sal DiMasi was found guilty of doing.

Another legislator opposes a bill that would benefit consumers but hurt the business of a particular industry, and receives as a thank-you thousands of dollars — in $500 increments, payable to his campaign committee — from lobbyists and business leaders in this industry.

This legislator was doing something that happens all the time: Raising campaign cash from the people who have it and have a reason to give it. His actions are legal, but are they right? Is this really the best way to run a government?

One of the biggest problems with our campaign finance system is that campaigns are often funded by the exact same people who are looking for specific government action — a contract, a tax break or a piece of legislation. Regardless of whether donations are made with an explicit quid pro quo, the implication is the same: A campaign donation will improve your chances of getting what you want from your government.

Despite recent scandals, I firmly believe from experience that most elected officials are honest people trying to do the right thing. We ran for public office out of a desire to help people and make a difference for our communities.

That work is made harder, however, by a system that erodes public faith in government, as even honest elected officials look tainted when money seems to be greasing the wheels of government. High-dollar fund-raisers filled with lobbyists and corporate executives, often taking place in the weeks around budget deliberations, do little to dispel this notion.

It’s a message the public, as well as lobbyists, seem to have absorbed. Constituents calling my office for help will sometimes hesitantly note that they volunteered on or donated to my campaign, perhaps hoping this might improve their chances of success.

Although my staff knows what to tell these constituents — my office is there to help everyone, regardless of who they may or may not have supported politically — it’s alarming and sad that so many people believe that this is the only way to get a fair shake from their government.

But can you blame them? How many stories have there been about jobs in the Probation Department going to campaign donors, sweetheart deals for special interests, bribery and shady campaign donations?

It’s no surprise the public would look at this growing list and conclude that government is for the rich and connected.

This is why it’s time we undertake bold reform.

I have proposed “An Act Restoring Public Confidence in Government by Eliminating Pay-to-Play Opportunities,” which would prohibit lobbyists from soliciting campaign contributions and prohibit principals of state contractors (with contracts of $50,000 or greater) and their immediate family from giving or soliciting contributions for statewide and legislative candidates for office. This legislation is modeled on Connecticut law, which is one of the strictest in the nation and was upheld by the courts in December 2008.

By limiting the impact of corporate money, we’ll have a better chance of passing important pieces of legislation that enjoy high levels of public support, but have been stalled for years by opposition from well-connected lobbyists and their corporate clients.

The public deserves to feel confident that their elected officials are making decisions based on what is best for the people — and not themselves. In the wake of the DiMasi trial, with all its disheartening revelations, the time is right for the Legislature to pass anti-pay-to-play legislation.

State Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D-Acton) represents the Middlesex and Worcester District.

By Sen. Jamie Eldridge
Special to the Worcester Business Journal
May 9, 2011

Now the company is saying — and the state seems to agree — that the company is only required to pay $3 to $4 million of that money back to the state.

The situation with Evergreen Solar has attracted a lot of attention, but it may not be an isolated incident. Every year, Massachusetts spends hundreds of millions of dollars on economic development subsidies — and yet we have no idea what return we’re getting on our investment because the state doesn’t have the information we’d need to properly evaluate the end results.

Tighter Controls

You can’t manage what you can’t measure. How much are we spending? Where is the money going? How many jobs are being created with those subsidies? How much are we paying for each job? These should be simple questions, but the answers are usually very hard to find, if you can find them at all.

This session, I’ve proposed legislation with Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Medford) to change that. Our bill, An Act Promoting Transparency & Efficiency in Economic Development Spending, would require companies receiving discretionary state subsidies to make firm job-creation promises, increase reporting and tracking to make sure those commitments are being met, cap the amount the state will give out for the creation of one full-time equivalent job at $35,000, and require the state to recapture (“clawback”) a pro-rated portion of the subsidy if a company doesn’t meet its job-creation commitment.

Although some in the business community have traditionally opposed measures like these, I would suggest that is short-sighted — particularly for small-business owners who aren’t typically on the receiving end of these large state subsidies.

The state has a limited pool of money to spend on economic development each year. We can spend it on things that help all businesses — like education, workforce development, transportation and other infrastructure improvements — or we can spend it on large subsidies to help individual corporations.

Any business that made substantial investments like the one made in Evergreen without tracking the results and adjusting accordingly wouldn’t be in business for very long.

It’s often said the government should operate more like a business, and in this case that adage is right: it’s time the commonwealth starts collecting the performance management information about our economic development spending that we need to make informed decisions and ensure that our economic development dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible.

Teach young people the basics of financial management

By Senator Jamie Eldridge and Senator Barry R. Finegold

Today’s youth are bombarded with a multitude of financial options and responsibilities at an increasingly young age. One out of every three teenagers has a credit card, and even more have an ATM card.

Yet many teenagers are ill-equipped to make informed decisions about financial matters. They don’t understand the fundamental principles of money management and the larger economy. As a result, teenagers are at a disadvantage when making important first financial decisions: buying a car, taking part or full-time employment, and using credit cards.

New college freshman have an average debt of $1,500 on personal credit cards. Four out of 10 Americans admit they are living beyond their means, primarily because of their misuse and misunderstanding of credit. Americans under 25 are filing for bankruptcy faster than any other age group.

At the same time, financial transactions are becoming more and more complicated. As we saw with the recent collapse of the housing market, those lacking financially literacy can be steered into risky loans and mortgages by unscrupulous lenders.

It’s clear we need to do a better job of teaching our children financial education basics, from how to create a budget or manage a credit card to how to apply for a loan and understand a credit score.

Building on the leadership of former State Senator Sue Tucker, we have filed legislation in the Massachusetts Senate this session that would integrate financial literacy lessons into the current math curriculum of all students in the commonwealth, from kindergarten through grade 12. This will help give our students the tools to plot a course toward strong financial footing.

The components of the personal financial literacy program outlined in the bill include: understanding loans, interest, credit card debt, and online commerce; the rights and responsibilities of renting or buying a home; saving, investing and planning for retirement; and banking and financial services. Additionally, the bill creates an advisory committee to investigate and study the development of curriculum and guidelines. We believe that by incorporating this material into the math curriculum, there will be a seamless transition for students.

Ensuring that our graduating seniors are financially literate is critical to the commonwealth’s economic future. In light of the economic problems facing our nation, we are reminded of how important it is to prepare our children to navigate an increasingly complex financial world. Finding their way in this marketplace will require more financial savvy than ever before. By teaching children the financial education basics in school, we will help them make educated financial decisions in the future, preventing future bankruptcies, foreclosures, and unmanageable debt.

This is a result that’s good for society as well as for individuals. Over the long term, the investment we make in teaching children financial literacy now will help strengthen our economy, prevent future economic crises, and improve economic security for all Massachusetts residents.

Importantly, financial education programs have a proven track record of helping working families. In Massachusetts, 7,707 foreclosure deeds were recorded in 2009 through October. Foreclosure-prevention education offered by community based organizations  have done significant work in improving local foreclosure rates. Introducing similar education through this legislation into our children’s curriculum will magnify and increase their financial success rate in the future.

We have heard loudly and clearly from dozens of teachers, financial institutions and students that the long-term health of our economy will be determined by how well we educate young people today. In an increasingly complex financial marketplace, we need to set a strong financial course for our youth. It is our hope that our colleagues in the House of Representatives and the Senate acknowledge the fundamental need for financial literacy programs and enact “An Act Establishing a Financial Literacy Curriculum” during this legislative session.

State Sen. Jamie Eldridge, D-Acton, represents the Middlesex and Worcester District. State Sen. Barry R. Finegold, D-Andover, represents the Second Essex and Middlesex District.