Bob Rio

Recent Posts

Updated Generator Rules Lower Costs, Improve Safety

Posted by Bob Rio on Mar 19, 2018 8:30:00 AM

The Baker Administration’s three-year-old regulatory review initiative resolved a major issue for Massachusetts employers on March 9 when the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) broadened the ability of companies to use emergency electric generators.

Generator.jpgDEP’s amended Air Pollution Control regulations ironed out inconsistencies between federal rules, which allow limited non-emergency use of generators, and state rules, which did not.

Associated Industries of Massachusetts long argued that the prohibition on non-emergency use was forcing member companies to rent generators during shutdowns for non-emergency tasks such as electric panel upgrades. The practice was not only costly but dangerous as equipment had to be brought in when the same equipment was on site.

DEP on March 9 changed the rules on emergency generators to mimic federal regulations, increasing safety, reducing emissions and saving money

  • The previous 300-hour limit for emergencies has been removed; and
  • Up to 50 hours per year may be use for non-emergency use (as part of a larger 100 hour per year exemption).

The regulation update is the latest bit of good news to come out of Governor Baker’s 2015 Executive Order 562, which required state agencies to review their regulations to eliminate or modify outdated or burdensome requirements while aligning Massachusetts regulations with Environmental Protection Agency rules and other federal requirements.

“We believe that it was the governor’s Executive Order 562, requiring that state and federal regulations be consistent when possible, that prompted the recent amendments. Several AIM members have already contacted us to let us know that it will reduce their operating costs while at the same time result in enhanced safety and lower emissions,” AIM President and Chief Executive Officer Richard C. Lord wrote in a letter Friday to Governor Baker’s Chief of Staff, Kristen Lepore, and Secretary of Environmental Affairs Matthew Beaton.

There were several other changes in the March 9 rule-making. Companies should review the regulations for any changes applicable to their own operations.

Questions about the new regulations? Contact Bob Rio at


Topics: Environment, Energy, Regulatory Reform

Senate Energy Bill: Christmas for Special Interests

Posted by Bob Rio on Feb 13, 2018 8:58:57 AM

Some members of the Senate don’t want you to spend all those recently announced savings on your electric and gas bills just yet.

solarpanels.small.jpgWeeks after federal tax reform generated rate reductions of $56 million for Eversource electric customers and $36 million dollars for National Grid gas customers, the Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change released an energy bill yesterday that will take all the savings back from the wallets of consumers.

Proponents claim these proposals will reduce the threat of climate change. They will not. Instead, the bill has become Christmas in February for energy related special interests. 

The 71-page bill, still under review by AIM, contains unnecessary and redundant programs just a year after the Legislature passed and Governor Charlie Baker signed another omnibus energy measure that brought competitive bidding to the procurement of clean energy. Massachusetts has already committed to a goal of 80 percent clean energy by 2050.  Legislating more will not make it happen faster – it will just increase prices for something we are already on track to meet.

The bill includes:

  • A requirement for the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs to develop a new “market-based compliance mechanism” on carbon emissions from transportation. The mechanism is better known as a carbon tax.  AIM supports imposition of a tax on carbon only if the money is used exclusively to invest in programs, including public transportation, that reduce fuel use. The current bill passes such discussions off to a regulatory process.  
  • A mandated increase in the amount of renewable power purchased by energy suppliers. Last year’s energy bill required the state’s utilities to purchase large amounts of offshore wind, hydropower and onshore wind as part of the largest competitive procurements for power ever in Massachusetts.  The results of these competitive bids are currently under review by the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) and the Department of Public Utilities (DPU). AIM believes lawmakers should let the current process play out before layering addition regulations on top.
  • An increase in subsidies (net metering) for solar development. The provision sounds good, but is unnecessary. The commonwealth unveiled a new competitive solar program in August that has already  reduced the cost of solar energy by nearly 50 percent. Let the new program work.

Employers urge the new Senate President, Harriet Chandler, and House Speaker Robert Deleo to take no action on the energy bill since many of the proposals are already set in motion. Give the current programs time to be implemented in a manner that creates benefit for the ratepayer, not special energy interests.

Interested in updates on energy issues? Contact Bob Rio at 

Topics: Massachusetts senate, Environment, Energy

Competition Moderates Clean-Energy Costs for Ratepayers

Posted by Bob Rio on Jan 16, 2018 8:30:00 AM

Clean energy in Massachusetts is finally subject to the laws of economics. That’s good news for both businesses and residents throughout the commonwealth who pay some of the highest electric rates in nation.

Hydro.jpgThe current competitive bidding process being conducted by Massachusetts utilities for large scale hydropower, onshore and offshore wind, and solar will not lower the price of electricity – at least not in the next few years. But ratepayers will at least be assured their money is being spent wisely.

Governor Charlie Baker signed two energy bills in 2016 that swept away the sweetheart deals and overly generous subsidies that characterized the clean-energy business prior to that time. The bills required purchases of clean energy to be competitive and transparent. The results are already evident, even before the contracts are signed.

In April 2017, as part of the first requirement for the utilities to purchase clean energy (primarily large hydropower from Canada and onshore wind) a request for proposals was sent to developers.

Suppliers responded with nearly 50 proposals, far more that the total cumulative amount allowed in the legislation. Some names you might recognize – Hydroquebec, for instance, has been sending power to Massachusetts for decades. But others may not be as familiar – Emera, Nalcor, TDI, Nextera, and Avangrid – some partnering with utilities National Grid and Eversource - all vying to serve Massachusetts consumers.

The clean energy process even attracted a bid from New England-based Deepwater Wind, which submitted a small offshore wind proposal, even though the larger competitive solicitation for offshore wind was not due until this month, separate from the initial clean energy bidding process.

While prices haven’t been disclosed yet (the analysis is based on a complex evaluation of bids and is confidential until a winning bidder is selected following by a public process at the Department of Public Utilities process), the fact that so many developers “sharpened their pencil” is a good start.

Bids under the clean-energy program are scheduled to be awarded around January 25. Bids for the separate offshore wind program will be selected on April 23..

Competition will have a particularly dramatic effect on solar energy.

Although some small solar projects were bid as part of the clean energy proposals, the vast amount of solar installations are currently subsidized through a different program that has been around for several years. It has become not only expensive – $500 million dollars per year, but also overly generous as the cost of solar installations has dropped more than 50 percent due to lower market prices.

Most states went to a competitive framework years ago – and saw significantly lower prices, but Massachusetts program is just starting. Bids for new solar projects were due in December. Those bids will establish a baseline process for solar power for the next several years. Based on the experience of other states, the prices should drop by more than half.

And that’s not all. In both the offshore wind and solar programs, future projects must be lower than the current prices, all but guaranteeing that the state has bent the price curve for these installations.

It’s an ambitious move. And in the aftermath of the Cape Wind debacle, some Massachusetts ratepayers may find it hard to believe that clean energy and offshore wind farms could be competitively priced and developed cost-effectively.

But that is what is happening. And the diversity of projects was no surprise to AIM – early supporters of bringing competition to clean energy.

The debate about whether the commonwealth will pursue clean energy is over. So is the debate about the value of competition to Massachusetts electric customers.

Topics: Electricity, Energy, Solar Subsidies

Tax Reform to Reduce Electric Rates

Posted by Bob Rio on Jan 3, 2018 6:22:15 PM

Federal tax reform may soon generate a $56 million windfall for Eversource electric ratepayers in Massachusetts.

Electriclinessmall.jpgEversource disclosed in a filing with the Department of Public Utilities today that the reduction in federal corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent will allow the company to reverse the rate increase approved for NSTAR customers in November and to reduce the amount of increase for customers of Western Massachusetts Electric Company.

NSTAR customers will now see a $35.4 million decrease in base rates instead of a $12.2 million increase. Western Massachusetts Electric customers will see their rate increase shrink from $24.8 million to $16.5 million.

Eversource indicated that it may seek additional rate reductions next January after calculating excess deferred taxes.

“Great news for Massachusetts employers struggling to manage the high cost of electricity,” said John Regan, Executive Vice President of Government Affairs for Associated Industries of Massachusetts.

“Tax reform created a tremendous opportunity to provide rate relief to customers and Eversource deserves credit for moving rapidly to realize that opportunity."

Attorney General Maura Healey filed a motion with the DPU on December 20 seeking larger rate reductions. Eversource says its agrees with the need to reduce rates, but calculates the numbers differently. Utility regulators will now determine the final figures to be implemented on February 1.

AIM urges the DPU to approve the rate reductions for Eversource and to review the rates of other utilities in the wake of the changes in federal tax law.

Topics: Massachusetts employers, Energy, Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities

New Greenhouse Regulations Will Drive Up Costs for Employers

Posted by Bob Rio on Aug 11, 2017 11:29:19 AM

The Baker Administration will today introduce new regulations that set specific limits on sources of greenhouse gases, the emissions linked to climate change. State officials indicate that the regulations could increase costs to electric ratepayers by as much as 2 percent.

Electriclinessmall.jpgThe new rules aim to reduce the state’s carbon emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, as required by state law.

Robert Rio, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs at AIM, issued the following statement:

“The 4,000 member employers of Associated Industries of Massachusetts are extremely disappointed with the Baker administration’s new electricity sector regulations. The administration openly admits that these rules will increase Massachusetts electric rates that are already among the highest in the nation.

“The increases produced by the proposed rules, when combined with other pending cost increases, could raise the electric bills of Massachusetts employers some 10 percent in the next year alone.

“These regulations are ultimately unnecessary. The administration could have chosen to work with the legislature to change the Global Warming Solutions Act to allow for alternative ways for the electricity sector to meet these obligations.  Instead, the administration has turned a blind eye to the corrosive impacts that high electric rates are having on struggling Massachusetts companies.

“The cost increases produced will harm consumers as well through higher rents, taxes and other costs of doing business.   

“AIM supports clean energy and is a leader in working with the administration to transition the power sector to cleaner sources.  These regulations are a setback to that effort."

Topics: Massachusetts economy, Environment, Energy

A Better Idea to Reduce Carbon Emissions...

Posted by Bob Rio on Jun 19, 2017 8:30:00 AM

Massachusetts could reduce carbon emissions far more significantly by streamlining existing greenhouse-gas reduction initiatives than by implementing a bureaucratic new carbon tax.

trafficsmall.jpgThat’s why Associated Industries of Massachusetts will oppose a carbon-tax bill and offer an alternative strategy during a Beacon Hill hearing tomorrow.

An Act Combating Climate Change would establish in its first year a carbon tax of 10 dollars per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, rising steadily to 40 dollars per ton in year seven on all fossil-fuel use (gas, diesel, natural gas) in transportation (on and off road vehicles, trucks, recreational and commercial vehicles, including buses, trains and vans) and residential and business heating and process.

Fuels used to generate electricity would be exempt because there is already a carbon tax on those sources.  

The money generated – almost $600 million dollars the first year and rising to $2.4 billion in year seven - would be returned as rebates to residents and business by a mechanism to be developed by the state Department of Energy Resources (DOER). Rebates would be made in rough proportion to what each sector pays. Based on current usage, approximately 60 percent of the funds would come from the transportation sector.

AIM opposes the carbon-tax bill because the rebate mechanisms is expensive and overly bureaucratic. Collecting and rebating money to nearly 7 million residents and 250,000 or more businesses will be an enormous administrative burden that will cut into the rebates.

AIM estimates that the average payer will get back through rebates only 50-60 percent of the amount paid into the tax. Certain groups could get more than they paid.    

Rather than establish an entirely new program, AIM suggests fixing the current programs; and if a carbon tax is desired, replace the current funding for the existing programs with the proceeds of a carbon tax.

Massachusetts already surcharges both residential and business electricity and natural gas users to support programs that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Those surcharges generate almost $2 billion dollars per year.

These programs could be more efficiently managed through the one source of revenue envisioned in this legislation.

Our recommendations include:

  • All carbon emissions, including the electricity sector, should be subject to the carbon tax.
  • The carbon tax should replace the carbon tax instituted under the state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).
  • All current programs that deal with energy efficiency and renewable energy that are funded by ratepayers or taxpayers should be eliminated, including those currently directed at the transportation sector.

With all programs eliminated, the single funding source would be overseen by a new advisory council – the Carbon Reduction Advisory Council - made up of a diverse group of stakeholders. Under the direction of this advisory council, the funds would be channeled to programs that would compete to provide the best carbon-reduction strategies.

This would be a bold change to the way Massachusetts operates these programs. But a bold change is needed. Many of the existing programs have become hidebound and uncoordinated. New ideas that could help our collective carbon-reduction goals are not instituted because they do not fit into current silos.

This new thinking is not only better but necessary to attain the commonwealth’s greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

Please contact me at 617.262.1180 or a if you would like more information or updates on the carbon tax.

Q & A on the Carbon Tax

Topics: Regulation, Environment, Carbon Tax

Take Action to Limit Electricity Rate Hikes

Posted by Bob Rio on Jul 22, 2016 11:57:57 AM

Employers concerned about the rising cost of electricity in Massachusetts take note – it’s time to contact members of a legislative conference committee hammering out an energy bill that could make your current electric bill look like child’s play.

Electriclinessmall.jpg The message: Pass a bill that follows the detailed recommendations of a four-page letter sent by AIM earlier this week.

The Legislature and Governor Charlie Baker have made it a priority to secure passage of an energy/electricity bill prior to the end of the session on July 31. 

AIM supports the commonwealth’s efforts to transition its economy to non-carbon fuel sources and attract new businesses to Massachusetts.  At the same time, the complex House and Senate energy bills now in conference will have far-reaching and irreversible impacts upon employers and citizens alike during the next two decades. 

One fact is clear: The final bill will raise electric rates.  Under virtually any scenario the above-market costs passed to ratepayers in the form of rate hikes could be larger than any utility rate hike in history. Massachusetts could end up buying up to 40 percent of its electricity from high-priced renewable energy sources.

The disparity between electric rates in Massachusetts and those in competing states is hindering the ability of employers to attract and retain jobs. The list of internationally known companies that have moved out of Massachusetts just in the last year is long and includes Polartec in Lawrence; SABIC in Pittsfield; Kraft Foods in Woburn; General Mills in Methuen; General Foods in Woburn; and Notini and Sons in Lowell.

Traditional companies located in Gateway cities are at particular risk. These companies are not beneficiaries of the new economy, but still provide good paying jobs, tax revenue and spin-off spending to their communities. 

Other Massachusetts employer groups also sent a letter to the conference committee this week urging lawmakers to factor in costs to ratepayers.

Contact the Energy Conference Committee


Topics: Electricity, Energy

Senate Advances Energy Bill

Posted by Bob Rio on Jun 27, 2016 9:47:25 AM

The Senate passedan  energy bill last week that would require utility companies to buy almost half of the electricity used in Massachusetts from renewable generation sources. AIM remains encouraged by some elements and concerned about others.

WindTurbinesSmall.jpgThe Senate measure (S. 2372, An Act Relative to Energy Diversity) would commit the commonwealth to purchasing 2,000 megawatts of electricity generated by offshore wind and about 1,400 MW from other sources, such as large hydropower and onshore wind. Other sections add requirements for energy labelling on buildings and mandatory energy audits. 

AIM’s response to the Senate proposal is the same as its reaction to an earlier bill passed by the House -  employers support the concept of buying electricity from clean-energy resources, provided the following guidelines are followed:

  • Any contract must be cost-effective for Massachusetts ratepayers (i.e. the benefits of any contract to the ratepayer must be greater than its costs);
  • The procurement process must be competitive and decision-makers must have an ability to refuse any bids that do not meet standards (i.e. no carve-outs for favored technologies);
  • Any above-market or below-markets costs of the contract must be allocated fairly among  all customers;
  • The clean energy procured must qualify to be used for compliance with the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), which requires a 25 percent reduction in statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050.

The significant amounts of clean-energy solicitations contained in the Senate bill are a matter of concern for employers who already pay some of the highest electricity bills in the country. While the bill provides “off-ramps” allowing utilities to decline contracts deemed unreasonable or not cost-effective, the initiative could be economically damaging if wind and hydro power are priced higher than the electricity we current buy from other sources.

Positive elements of the legislation include:

  • The procurement process would require the price of each solicitation for offshore wind to result in lower prices than the solicitation before it, a good requirement.   
  • The bill would define cost-effective contracts simply as cost less benefits. Inexplicably missing from the requirement is that the benefits must accrue to Massachusetts ratepayers. The Senate version still leaves open the possibility that Massachusetts ratepayers could subsidize out-of-state ratepayers by paying for benefits that accrue to other states. AIM will work with the Senate to clarify this section.
  • The bill contains a detailed tracking mechanism to ensure that clean-energy generation is used for compliance with the state greenhouse-gas requirements.
  • There is no remuneration surcharge to utilities included, potentially saving customers millions of dollars.
  • The creation of a task force to develop a new energy efficiency program starting in 2018.

AIM remains concerned about several elements:

  • The bill doubles the renewable portfolio standard, which could increase cost, particularly since the increase in the RPS is not tied to the new timetable for the contracts. The mismatch would create a shortage of renewable power in the short term.
  • The cost-allocation methodologies for accounting for above-market power is inconsistent with what we believe should be fair to ratepayers.   

 Lawmakers are expected to propose a significant number of amendments to the bill this week.

Topics: Electricity, Energy

Beacon Hill Energy Bill Won't Lower Electric Bills

Posted by Bob Rio on May 31, 2016 7:30:00 AM

Those expecting the long-awaited Beacon Hill omnibus energy bill to lower the state’s highest-in-the-nation electricity costs will be disappointed.

Electriclinessmall.jpgIn fact, the bill will likely increase energy costs for employers and consumers.

The Legislature’s Joint committee on Telecommunications, Energy and Utilities released H.4336 on May 23.  The measure now goes to the House Ways and Means Committee for review.

The bill contains only two provisions – a requirement for utilities to solicit contracts for hydroelectric power combined with onshore wind; and a similar requirement to purchase offshore wind.

AIM supports the concept of soliciting for clean energy resources, provided the following guidelines are included:

  • Any contract must be cost-effective for Massachusetts ratepayers (i.e. the benefits of any contract to the ratepayer must be greater than its costs);
  • The procurement process must be competitive and decision-makers must have an ability to refuse any bids that do not meet standards (i.e. no carve outs for favored technologies);
  • Any above-market or below-markets costs of the contract must be allocated fairly among  all customers; and
  • The clean energy procured must qualify to be used for compliance with the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), which requires a 25 percent reduction in statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and an 80 percent reduction by 2050.

The last guideline is important in light of a May 17 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling that the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has not acted aggressively enough to enforce regulations to meet the GWSA emission-reduction targets. DEP must now develop new regulations that reduce emissions in Massachusetts, especially in the transportation and energy generation sectors.

The court decision complicates the omnibus energy bill because virtually all of the clean energy envisioned in the omnibus bill would be purchased from out of state and would thus not directly reduce emissions in Massachusetts.

AIM is seeking to add language in the energy bill to ensure that any emission credits received from procuring clean energy under the bill are properly credited in accordance with the SJC decision. If clarification language is not included, and further interpretation of the decision finds that greenhouse gas reduction from all this clean energy cannot be used as a compliance tool with the GWSA, billions of dollars will be wasted to “comply” with the law and policymakers will no doubt impose more Draconian limits and costs on ratepayers.

The House has the opportunity to improve this legislation.    

While the bill sets up a process to solicit hydro and offshore wind, there is no definition of “cost-effective” or “reasonable,” two standards that appear numerous times in the procurement language of the bill. A definition of those terms is sorely needed because current law classifies even expensive projects like Cape Wind as “cost-effective” even though the energy they produce is several times more expensive than other clean power.  

Legislators should also change what appears to a special status created for offshore wind at the expense of large hydro and onshore wind. The bill establishes a ceiling on the amount on amount of large hydro/on shore wind that can be procured at about 20 percent of the of the states total electric load, while establishing a minimum amount of procurement for offshore wind at about 10 percent of the state electricity load.

The language is puzzling. It puts a limit on what may be the cheapest sources of power (large hydro/wind), while encouraging virtually unlimited amounts of the highest-cost power (offshore wind). The inevitable result will make Massachusetts dependent upon high-cost energy sources at multiple times the cost of conventional power.  

A recent analysis performed through the AIM Foundation found that Massachusetts employers and consumers already pay more than $800 million in additional costs on their electric bills to support renewable energy. Add carbon taxes for power plants (passed on to the ratepayer) and energy efficiency surcharges and the cost balloons to $1.5 billion, not including the cost of the actual electricity.

Businesses pay nearly 55 percent of these costs. More importantly, business that have used the AIM Energy Calculator have found that these hidden costs can add up to 25 percent of a total electric bill.

AIM is working with the House Ways and Means Committee to ensure that these items are addressed.

Topics: Electricity, Massachusetts Legislature, Energy

It's Time for Massachusetts to Buy Local

Posted by Bob Rio on Apr 20, 2016 7:30:00 AM

It seems everyone these days wants to buy from local sources.

Farmers_Market.jpg“Buy local” has become a familiar battle cry in restaurants, retail stores and roadside stands among consumers who prefer to know where their favorite products are made. These consumers want to be confident that the items they buy are made sustainably and that their purchases support local jobs.

But why does the concern for locally made products in Massachusetts seem to stop at the farmers market? Why have scores of Bay State companies, some household names, and the thousands of local jobs they provided, disappeared with virtually no notice or outcry from state officials? And why has our commonwealth not resolved the problems that drove these companies away?   

Do you own a Polartec jacket for hiking (or to make it look like you hike)? The company, formerly known as Malden Mills, was started in 1906 and was miraculously able to recover after a devastating fire in 1995 nearly bankrupted the business. Polartec recently announced the closing of its Lawrence manufacturing facility, putting 350 unionized employees out of work and moving production to New Hampshire and Tennessee.

Use salad dressing on that locally sourced lettuce? Cain’s products, started in Boston 1914, is closing its Ayer plant, putting another 100 people out of work. The company is moving production to Pennsylvania, Georgia and Kentucky.

The list goes on. General Mills in Methuen, makers of Yoplait yogurt since 1993 closed, sending 144 jobs to other states. Kraft foods, located in Woburn for some 95 years, is putting another 200 people out of work. Sunny Delight is cutting 50 jobs in Littleton. Notini and Sons in Lowell, 100 jobs lost after 125 years. Courier Corp, a printer founded in 1824 and recently sold to an out-of-state firm, is shutting down its Westford plant putting 200 people out of work.

And those 1,144 jobs lost are just the ones that have been publicly announced in 2015 and 2016.

The reason for these closings are varied and complex. Some companies were sold to out-of-staters, while others cited high costs in Massachusetts for labor, housing, health insurance or energy. Some just used the euphemism “competitive realignments,” which probably includes a little bit of everything.

But all of the announcements have one thing in common – these companies and brands are not coming back and their employees and suppliers who depend on them are looking for jobs.

Massachusetts takes a back seat to no one in its ability to brag about the reason companies locate here – our universities, our educated work force, our innovation industries. General Electric’s announcement in January that it will move its corporate headquarters to Boston unleashed a euphoric wave of valedictories about the innovation ecosystem that GE hopes will help it to create the industrial Internet.

But the state seems strangely unconcerned with the reasons that companies leave. It’s disheartening, especially for the hard-working people who lose their jobs and their livelihoods. How can we make the Massachusetts economy successful for everyone if we don’t know why companies come or go?

The 4,500 member employers of Associated Industries of Massachusetts believe that the acceleration in business closings has much to do with the persistently high cost of health care and energy in Massachusetts.

Health-care costs in Massachusetts remain 36 percent more than the national average. Between 2005 and 2014, increases in health insurance premiums have outpaced income gains, consuming more than 40 percent of family income growth over the past nine years.

The relentless acceleration of health-care spending and health-insurance premiums threatens both the continued growth of the Massachusetts economy and the ability of citizens to access the commonwealth’s world-renowned medical system. It also threatens the commonwealth itself - MassHealth, the government insurance program for low-income residents, now accounts for 40 percent of the state budget at $14.7 billion annually.

Energy costs are likewise among the highest in the country – nearly double most places these companies are moving production to.

To those that care about the price of electricity – and that includes many companies outside the Boston area – our high prices are a never-ending drag on local profits. At a 5 percent profit margin – probably about right for food businesses – every dollar increase in electricity, health care, taxes or other costs that don’t contribute to increased production means another $20 in revenue is required just to break even. At some point, even the strongest fighter gives up.

The future promises little change. Despite an outcry from the business community about high electric rates, the legislature recently passed – and the governor was happy to sign - a new solar bill that will continue our highest-in- the nation subsidies. The justification - to protect solar jobs.  

While it is comforting to know that the Legislature is willing to tax some industries to support favored ones, it is also time to realize that Massachusetts is made up of several economies. The economies in the eastern part of the state have different issues than those in the central, western and southeastern areas, particularly around the bottom-line cost areas such as electricity and health care.  

Sure, companies will always realign their businesses. In some cases that may spell job losses for Massachusetts, in other cases, like GE’s, it may signal gains. But the state should not be complicit in a company’s demise by failing to respond to economic issues.

You’ll still be able to buy Polartec jackets, eat Yoplait yogurt and slather your sandwich with Cain’s mayo at the time next year. But the good jobs at good companies providing good wages we’ve depended on for decades won’t be locally sourced any more.

Topics: Health Care Costs, Economic Development, Energy

Subscribe to our blog

Posts by popularity

Browse by Tag