(Spin it ’round again, DeLeo. – promoted by eli_beckerman)

The Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy was in the news last week on three bills that I am following:  the Expanded Bottle Bill, the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act, and the Muni Choice bill for municipal power choice.

Expanding the bottle bill to require deposits and to encourage recycling and redemption of water and sports drink containers, is the right thing to do for the budget, for the environment, and for expanding green job-creating infrastructure.  I support the expanded bottle bill.  Last week, however, the House Co-Chair of the Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy, John D. Keenan, was quoted in the Boston Herald  in a candid admission that the $22 million that the expanded bottle bill  was forecast to generate in the governor’s budget would not be included in the House’s budget proposal because House Speaker De Leo did not wish for it to be considered.

The committee acted on the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act last week.  The bill was relegated to a study, which means that it is dead.  I oppose this bill primarily because wind energy siting permits in towns would have been expedited by a 3-5 member appointed town panel.  I support expediting such permitting processes by bringing proposals before annual town meeting voters, who are the true voices of the community for major projects such as wind energy installations.  Secretary Sullivan declared at a Sep 2011 public hearing before the joint committee in Hancock that wind installations would not be placed in communities that didn’t want them.  Town meetings are where this should be decided.  

The committee gave a favorable report to the Mass Muni Choice bill, which I support.  With the ongoing development of clean renewable energy that can be locally generated (read:  wind and solar), it is good policy to allow municipalities an option to own and provide power to their communities, which is what this bill does.