Connect with us

Massachusetts

Nearly three months into Trump, here’s where Massachusetts’ climate work stands – The Boston Globe

Published

on

Nearly three months into Trump, here’s where Massachusetts’ climate work stands – The Boston Globe


What it also means is that the state’s aggressive climate goal to effectively zero out its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, as state law demands, will be harder to achieve without a willing partner in the White House.

So, where are we?

“We now find ourselves in a completely different world when it comes to federal climate policy,” state Senator Cindy Creem said Tuesday at the opening of a hearing of the Senate Committee on Climate Change and Global Warming.

“But we are not powerless,” she said. “In Massachusetts, we may have to change our course, to recalibrate our plans to reflect a lack of financial or regulatory support from the government, but we’re still pressing for reaching our net zero emissions [target].”

Advertisement

Over the course of two hours of testimony on Tuesday, experts from the state and climate advocates presented that new reality — what’s been lost, what’s been regained, and what’s being done to adjust.

Here’s what they said.

Trump’s first-day executive orders attempted to gut much of the progress that Massachusetts has made on climate, largely by trying to claw back the funds awarded via President Joe Biden’s signature piece of legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act. That Act, passed by Congress, directed hundreds of billions of dollars toward kick-starting the clean energy transition, while seeking to create jobs and address historic inequities.

Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and a coalition of her counterparts from other states fought back, successfully restoring much of that funding, but not all of it, according to Kathryn Antos, state undersecretary for decarbonization and resilience.

“This has been a rapidly evolving situation, with the fate of some of our most important climate grants remaining uncertain,” she said.

Advertisement

That includes a $389 million grant from the federal Department of Energy that would upgrade and expand two electric substations in Massachusetts and Connecticut. That work would accommodate enough power to support 2 million households, and would support the development of the region’s first multi-day battery storage system, which is planned for Maine.

Another grant that remains frozen: $378,000 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help address the riskiest dams in the state. The funds would go to creating a new tool to help prioritize risk — a critical step as the state considers how to repair and remove dams while keeping infrastructure resilient, Antos said.

And while federally funded work to install a fast-charging network for electric vehicles is still moving ahead, a $14.4 million grant for slower chargers at select park and ride and MBTA transit parking lots has been put on hold, according to Andrew Paul, director of strategic initiatives at the state Department of Transportation.

Ever since he was out on the campaign trail, it was clear that offshore wind would be a major target of President Trump. That has borne out.

A day-one executive order to pause all leasing for offshore wind in federal waters and review existing leases has sent shivers up and down the industry, putting projects still in need of permits on hold and delaying progress in the state.

Advertisement

“Without all the federal permits, projects planned for New England waters cannot begin construction, even if projects do have all of their federal permits,” said Kelt Wilska, offshore wind director for Environmental League of Massachusetts. “These actions send an immensely negative market signal to developers.”

As of now, the state is on track to have just three offshore wind projects completed by the end of this decade — Block Island Wind and Revolution Wind, off the coast of Rhode Island, and Vineyard Wind 1 south of Martha’s Vineyard. That adds up to just under 2 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, Wilska said — far short of state’s goal of 6 gigawatts.

It’s not just state-level grants that have been eliminated. Federal grants on climate that had been awarded to local and regional groups have also been subject to freezes (and, in some cases, thaws).

The Association to Preserve Cape Cod was unable to access funds from two federal grants for six wetland restoration projects in January — work that would make the area more resilient to rising seas. By mid-February, that funding had been restored, said Andrew Gottlieb, executive director of the association. But, he said, it’s hard to trust it.

“We’re spending money not knowing with any certainty whether or not we’re going to continue to be able to access reimbursement, and whether or not the local contractors who actually did the work on good faith are ultimately going to get getting paid,” Gottlieb said.

Advertisement

A $500,000 grant for the Mystic River Watershed Association, meanwhile, was eliminated last week, according to Patrick Herron, executive director of the association. Those funds were intended to address extreme heat in Chelsea, Malden, and Everett caused by the urban heat island effect, when highly urbanized areas experience worse heat than outlying areas. Those cities can be 10 degrees hotter than their neighbors.

And at the Charles River Watershed Association, executive director Emily Norton said that the organization won’t be receiving a million dollars in federal community project funding it had been expecting, nor will it get the $30,000 from the EPA it had applied for after the entire grant program was eliminated. Other projects — to address water quality or make the area more flood resilient — are also likely to suffer, Norton said.

“These are the sort of areas that the federal government has been providing services that a lot of people probably aren’t aware of, but we are going to notice the cuts,” Norton said.

With all these setbacks, it’s the state’s job to figure out where it can step in and keep progress moving, Creem and others said.

That means looking for creative ways to beef up funds for climate work — whether through an expanded green bank to provide financing for clean energy projects, increased incentives for electric vehicles, or other creative solutions, according to other experts at the hearing.

Advertisement

“Mass. law requires us to reach net zero emissions by 2050 and that hasn’t changed,” Creem said. “If we’re going to comply, we can’t have time to be in despair. We have to work immediately.”


Sabrina Shankman can be reached at sabrina.shankman@globe.com.





Source link

Advertisement

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Removes LGBT Ideology Requirements for Foster-Care Parents

Published

on

Massachusetts Removes LGBT Ideology Requirements for Foster-Care Parents


Massachusetts will no longer require prospective foster parents to affirm gender ideology in order to qualify for fostering children, with the move coming after a federal lawsuit from a religious-liberty group. 

Alliance Defending Freedom said Dec. 17 that the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families “will no longer exclude Christian and other religious families from foster care” because of their “commonly held beliefs that boys are boys and girls are girls.”

The legal group announced in September that it had filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court over the state policy, which required prospective parents to agree to affirm a child’s “sexual orientation and gender identity” before being permitted to foster. 

Attorney Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse said at the time that the state’s foster system was “in crisis” with more than 1,400 children awaiting placement in foster homes. 

Advertisement

Yet the state was “putting its ideological agenda ahead of the needs of these suffering kids,” Widmalm-Delphonse said.

The suit had been filed on behalf of two Massachusetts families who had been licensed to serve as foster parents in the state. They had provided homes for nearly three dozen foster children between them and were “in good standing” at the time of the policy change. 

Yet the state policy required them to “promise to use a child’s chosen pronouns, verbally affirm a child’s gender identity contrary to biological sex, and even encourage a child to medically transition, forcing these families to speak against their core religious beliefs,” the lawsuit said. 

With its policy change, Massachusetts will instead require foster parents to affirm a child’s “individual identity and needs,” with the LGBT-related language having been removed from the state code. 

The amended language comes after President Donald Trump signed an executive order last month that aims to improve the nation’s foster care system by modernizing the current child welfare system, developing partnerships with private sector organizations, and prioritizing the participation of those with sincerely held religious beliefs. 

Advertisement

Families previously excluded by the state rule are “eager to reapply for their licenses,” Widmalm-Delphonse said on Dec. 17.

The lawyer commended Massachusetts for taking a “step in the right direction,” though he said the legal group will continue its efforts until it is “positive that Massachusetts is committed to respecting religious persons and ideological diversity among foster parents.”

Other authorities have made efforts in recent years to exclude parents from state child care programs on the basis of gender ideology.

In July a federal appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that Oregon likely violated a Christian mother’s First Amendment rights by demanding that she embrace gender ideology and homosexuality in order to adopt children.

In April, meanwhile, Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed legislation that would have prohibited the government from requiring parents to affirm support for gender ideology and homosexuality if they want to qualify to adopt or foster children.

Advertisement

In contrast, Arkansas in April enacted a law to prevent adoptive agencies and foster care providers from discriminating against potential parents on account of their religious beliefs. 

The Arkansas law specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against parents over their refusal to accept “any government policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that conflicts with the person’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Massachusetts orders DraftKings to pay $934K after it botched MLB parlay bets

Published

on

Massachusetts orders DraftKings to pay 4K after it botched MLB parlay bets


A costly sportsbook screwup left DraftKings on the hook for nearly $1 million after Massachusetts regulators ordered the payouts tied to a botched MLB parlay scheme.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission voted 5-0 on Thursday to reject DraftKings’ bid to void $934,137 in payouts stemming from a series of correlated parlays placed during MLB’s 2025 American League Championship Series, according to Bookies.com.

A Massachusetts customer wagered $12,950 total across 27 multi-leg parlays on Toronto Blue Jays player Nathan Lukes, exploiting an internal DraftKings configuration error that allowed the bettor to stack multiple versions of the same bet into one wager.

DraftKings sought to void a payout of nearly $1 million to a bettor who placed 27 multi-leg parlay wagers that were successful. Tada Images – stock.adobe.com

DraftKings told regulators the bets should never have been accepted and argued the patron acted unethically by taking advantage of an obvious error.

Advertisement

Commissioners flatly rejected that argument.

The wagers were tied to DraftKings’ “Player to Record X+ Hits in Series” market during the seven-game ALCS between Toronto and Seattle.

Because of a misclassification inside DraftKings’ trading tools, Lukes was incorrectly labeled a “non-participant” rather than an active player.

That designation disabled safeguards designed to block bettors from parlaying correlated outcomes from the same market.

As a result, the bettor was able to combine multiple Lukes hit thresholds — including 5+, 6+, 7+ and 8+ hits — into single parlays, functionally creating an inflated wager on Lukes recording eight or more hits at dramatically enhanced odds.

Advertisement
A Massachusetts customer wagered $12,950 total across 27 multi-leg parlays on Toronto Blue Jays player Nathan Lukes. AP

The bettor also added unrelated, high-probability legs, including NFL moneyline bets, to further juice payouts.

Lukes ultimately appeared in all seven games and finished the series with nine hits, clearing every threshold.

Of the 27 parlays placed, 24 hit cleanly. Only three lost due to unrelated college football legs involving Clemson, Florida State and Miami.

During a heated exchange at Thursday’s commission meeting, DraftKings executive Paul Harrington accused the patron of fraud and unethical conduct.

DraftKings told regulators the bets should never have been accepted and argued the patron acted unethically by taking advantage of an obvious error.

Commissioners bristled. One of them, Eileen O’Brien, blasted DraftKings for casting aspersions on the bettor without evidence and said the situation did not meet the standard of an “obvious error.”

Advertisement

“An obvious error is a legal and factual impossibility,” O’Brien said. “This is an advantage that the patron took.”

She added that DraftKings’ internal failures — not the bettor’s conduct — created the situation.

“We need to seriously consider giving voice to the consumer and getting their half the story,” O’Brien said. “The compulsion to pay will in fact encourage compliance.”

Because of a misclassification inside DraftKings’ trading tools, Lukes was incorrectly labeled a “non-participant” rather than an active player. Getty Images

Other commissioners echoed that view, emphasizing that it is the operator’s responsibility to ensure the integrity of its markets.

The commission noted that DraftKings acknowledged the root cause was internal — a configuration failure within its own trading tools — and not the result of a third-party odds provider or external data feed.

Advertisement

Upon discovering the error, DraftKings pulled the affected markets, left the wagers unsettled pending regulatory guidance and implemented corrective fixes.

The company said no other Massachusetts customers were impacted, though the same issue appeared in two other jurisdictions.

The Post has sought comment from DraftKings.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Massachusetts

Deadline nears for Massachusetts Health Connector enrollment

Published

on

Deadline nears for Massachusetts Health Connector enrollment


SPRINGFIELD — With just days left before the Dec. 23 deadline, state and local leaders are urging uninsured residents to enroll in health coverage through the Massachusetts Health Connector to ensure they’re protected in the new year. The cutoff applies to anyone who wants coverage starting Jan. 1.

The Health Connector — the state’s official health insurance marketplace — is the only place residents can access financial assistance and avoid misleading “junk” policies that often appear in online searches, according to a statement from the agency.

Officials say the enrollment period is especially critical for people without job-based insurance, gig workers, newcomers to the state and anyone seeking affordable, comprehensive health plans.

At a press conference Wednesday at Caring Health Center’s Tania M. Barber Learning Institute in Springfield, health leaders emphasized that most people who sign up through the Connector qualify for help paying premiums through its ConnectorCare program.

Advertisement

Audrey Morse Gasteier, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Connector, said the state has spent nearly two decades committed to ensuring access to health care and offering the most affordable coverage possible for everyone.

”And despite the federal challenges, we continue to do everything we can to offer coverage to everyone who needs it. Now is the time for people who don’t have coverage to come in, apply, and find out what kind of plan for which they qualify,” she said.

Open enrollment also gives current members a chance to review their coverage, compare options and make changes.

Recent changes in federal policy have caused shifts in coverage and higher premiums for many Massachusetts residents, creating uncertainty and concern, said Cristina Huebner Torres, chief executive vice president and strategy and research officer at Caring Health Center.

“During times like these, trusted, local support becomes even more essential, and our Navigators have been on the very front lines, helping residents understand their options, maintain coverage, and navigate a complex and evolving system,” Huebner Torres said.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending