GREENFIELD — After a passionate debate, city councilors approved a resolution filed by Precinct 6 City Councilor Patricia Williams vowing support for proposed state legislation mandating that the largest oil and gas companies pay for municipal projects to mitigate the impacts of climate change.
State Reps. Steven Owens and Jack Patrick Lewis filed “An Act Establishing a Climate Change Superfund” (H.1014/S.588), also known as the Climate Change Superfund Bill, earlier this legislative session. If approved and signed into law, the bill would require oil and gas companies to contribute to the fund in amounts proportional to their share of fossil fuel emissions, as determined by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.
“This is about accountability. … What this does is it creates a superfund that the big oil and gas companies pay into. … The superfund then deals with issues that arise from pollution, like illnesses, the cleaning up of waterways and cleaning up of Earth,” Williams said, introducing debate at Wednesday’s meeting. “You make a mess, you clean it. That’s how it works.”
The bill also stipulates that 40% of the funds raised through the legislation go toward projects benefiting Environmental Justice communities. Similar to the Massachusetts bill, New York and Vermont passed “climate change superfund acts” in 2024, which require major fossil fuel producers to put billions of dollars into climate response funds.
While most councilors voiced their approval for the resolution, it was met with criticism from Precinct 9 City Councilor Derek Helie and Precinct 3 City Councilor Michael Mastrototaro, who both argued that the proposed legislation would unfairly punish oil and gas companies when electric energy is also responsible for environmental harm.
“I cannot support this. One, it’s government overreach and I believe in small government. Two, going after the gas companies and oil companies that have, over the years, helped found what this country is and how this country has become as big as it is, the construction projects, the diesel that we use in construction, everything else, because there was no alternative energy at the time, it’s just unfair,” Helie said. “If you look at what you guys like to call renewable energy … what do we do with the solar panels when they’re dead in 15 years? Where do they go? Go up to Maine, they’re cutting down acres and acres of forestry for solar farms.”
The bill lists numerous projects that could be funded using the superfund, including upgrades to roads, bridges, transit systems and other infrastructure; retrofitting sewage treatment plants that are prone to flooding; upgrading stormwater drainage systems; and undertaking preventative health care programs to treat those whose health has been negatively impacted by climate change.
Under the proposed legislation, which in February was referred to the Joint Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, the state would conduct a “climate cost study” of oil and gas companies’ total greenhouse gas emissions.
The study would also work to find a “reasonable estimate” of the costs that have been incurred and are expected to be incurred through Dec. 31, 2045, to “avoid, moderate, repair or adapt to negative impacts of climate change.”
Mastrototaro echoed Helie’s remarks, adding that he believes the most affordable and environmentally clean way to produce energy is to task the United States Navy with nuclear energy production.
“Forty-three percent of electricity [in the United States] is produced by gas, so if you run electric heat, it’s gas that’s creating it. If you run a heat pump, it’s gas that’s creating it,” he said. “If you want clean, inexpensive energy and nobody in this room wants to hear it, put the U.S. Navy in charge, because they run submarines on nukes. … You could put all these energy companies out of business if you build small new plants in each city and you don’t hire an energy company to run them, you hire the U.S. Navy.”
Precinct 5 City Councilor Marianne Bullock responded to Mastrototaro’s comments, noting that while she would would like to see the military be used for peaceful operations such as affordable utilities, she supports the legislation, as it would ensure that multi-billion-dollar industries play their part in repairing the damage caused by climate change.
“The idea [isn’t] that this would be a punishment or a harm to a corporation that makes multi-billion dollars a year versus specific cities and towns and people that have been targeted,” Bullock said. “When billionaires are making billions of dollars and people are getting sick and dying and hurt because of their actions, you’re not being punished. You’re being held accountable.”
The council voted in favor of the resolution, with nine “yes” votes. Precinct 7 Councilor William “Wid” Perry abstained, and councilors Helie and Mastrototaro voted against the resolution.
Bar advocate pay
Councilors also voted unanimously in favor of a resolution submitted by Greenfield attorney Isaac Mass calling for City Council to support raising the rate for bar advocates — private attorneys who accept court appointments — by $35 per hour.
Massachusetts pays bar advocates — private attorneys who accept court appointments — $65 per hour for representing a client in District Court and $85 for Superior Court. Arguing that the rate is significantly lower than that offered in other states, public defenders have been advocating for raises of $35 per hour in the first year and $25 an hour in the second year — three times more than the $20 an hour over two years that the Legislature and Gov. Maura Healey ultimately approved in the supplemental spending bill.
By comparison, Maine pays $158 per hour, New Hampshire pays $125 to $150, New York pays $158 and Rhode Island pays $112 to $142. Mass cited the pay rates of nearby states when discussing his motivation behind the resolution, which was sponsored by Bullock.