FILE – In this Jan. 20, 2015 file photo, a plume of steam billows from the coal-fired Merrimack Station in Bow, N.H. President Barack Obama on Monday, Aug. 3, 2015, will unveil the final version of his unprecedented regulations clamping down on carbon dioxide emissions from existing U.S. power plants. The Obama administration first proposed […]

BOSTON, Mass. (State House News Service) – Putting a price and cost on carbon emissions could save lives and improve health as harmful pollutants would be curtailed along with greenhouse gases, according to a new report that was presented at an event with supporters of the proposal on Thursday.

From 2017 to 2040, hypothetical fees on carbon – intended to steer the market towards greener practices – would save 340 lives and help avoid $2.9 billion in projected health care costs, according to the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health study, which was funded by The Merck Family Fund and others.

Sen. Michael Barrett, a Lexington Democrat, has for a few years backed legislation that he said would be revenue neutral – financially rewarding those who use less fossil fuel and adding costs for those who use more. Consumers would be charged a carbon fee at the gas pump and would then receive flat rebates, imposing a net cost on the biggest emitters.

Under Barrett’s bill (S 1821), rural residents – who rely more on automobiles – would receive slightly higher rebates, according to the study released Thursday.

“If you do carbon pricing right, the poorest 60 percent of Massachusetts happens to be, on balance, the lowest energy consumers,” Barrett told the News Service. He said, “We’re rewarding people who are green either because they’re environmentally minded or because they’re poor.”

Steve Dodge, the executive director of the Massachusetts Petroleum Council, said it is difficult for a small state like Massachusetts to affect air quality on its own and any analysis of the bill should consider those whose costs will increase because of it.

“Air doesn’t stop at the state line,” Dodge said. He said the price at the pump would be “significant.”

The fees in the legislation would eventually reach $40 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions.

A chart Dodge provided the News Service indicates that a $40-per-ton carbon fee would mean a 35-cent per-gallon fee on gasoline.

This session, Barrett is co-chairman of the Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy and he has a new carbon-pricing ally in the House – Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Co-chairwoman Jennifer Benson, a Lunenburg Democrat.

The bills filed by Barrett and Benson exempt the power-generating sector from carbon fees. Bay State power plants are already subject to the multi-state cap-and-trade system under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which encourages lower-emissions and funds green energy projects.

“There’s an adverse economic impact,” Dodge told the News Service.

Speaking at The Boston Foundation where the study was presented on Thursday, Benson said she has spoken to pediatricians about the benefits of cutting back on fossil fuel emissions and said Massachusetts could set an example for the world.

“We’re going to be able to prove that it can be done,” said Benson, whose bill (H 1726) would devote 20 percent of the carbon fees collected toward green infrastructure, according to the study, which said the rebates in Benson’s bill would be weighted toward rural and low-income residents.

Barrett said his bill has 64 co-sponsors – which is nearly one third of the Legislature – and said the administration of Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican who often takes a dim view on tax proposals, has maintained a neutral stance on carbon pricing.

“They’re being very courtly. They don’t have a bad word to say about carbon pricing,” Barrett told the News Service.

“The Baker-Polito Administration is proud that Massachusetts and fellow RGGI member states have reduced carbon pollution by more than 40 percent since 2005, while lowering energy costs through initiatives such as the governor’s landmark affordable and clean energy law, but the administration does not support implementing any additional ‘carbon tax’ that would adversely impact businesses’ and families’ utility bills,” Baker spokesman Brendan Moss told the News Service in a statement.

Trucking outfits, taxi companies and other major fuel consumers would by the nature of their business be more exposed to a new fee on carbon emissions. Barrett said his bill would allow the administration to provide relief to industrial sectors and particular businesses that are disproportionately affected.

Wayne Davis, a co-founder of biogas company Harvest Power who spoke at Thursday’s event, said the purported public health benefits of reducing carbon emissions could make a more persuasive case for a carbon fee than its impact on global warming.

Jonathan Buonocore, who worked on the study, said that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would also reduce harmful pollutants contained in emissions that can cause cardiovascular disease and respiratory irritation.Copyright 2017 State House News Service