Opinion: Newport opts for the best value

The Dec. 18 article “Newport opts for electric heat over gas” mischaracterizes the non-infrastructure solution and misleads the reader. The writer points to a table that looks only at National Grid’s estimate of total costs but says nothing of the economic benefits customers receive in each scenario. No rational consumer ignores the benefits when evaluating investment choices and the Newport and Portsmouth Councils made the correct decision when endorsing the non-infrastructure approach. To see the value proposition of each solution, one must simply read forward in National Grid’s own study to Figure 16 on Page 97. Examining this table, which includes proven and measurable near- and long-term benefits to consumers, one readily sees the non-infrastructure solution as the best value to replace the Old Mill Lane Liquefied Natural Gas facility in Portsmouth.

The reason is simple: much of National Grid’s projected costs of the non-infrastructure solution are in the form of incentives—ratepayer funds that go back into the hands of customers for home improvements that provide economic benefits through measures like weatherization and replacement of fossil fuel appliances. These measures increase home values and lower consumers’ overall energy needs. Weatherization methods, like insulation and draft sealing, help reduce the amount of heated or cooled air your home loses each season. Meanwhile, modern electric replacements of fossil fuel appliances deliver superior performance and safety at higher efficiency. For instance, electric heat pumps are at least 300% more energy efficient than even the best gas furnaces. Electric heat pumps also work in reverse to provide energy efficient air conditioning in the summer months—one system for all seasons.

Utilities earn more ratepayer money when they build new infrastructure, like gas mains to serve new customers. So it is no wonder National Grid doesn’t support a moratorium on new gas connections. Since your home already has the electricity to run electric heat pumps and other electric appliances, National Grid wouldn’t benefit as much financially from pursuing the non-infrastructure solution. Conversely, the utility proposals to build new gas infrastructure generally provide more financial benefit to the utility than to customers—they will enable National Grid to expand its customer base, sell more gas, and collect more revenue for shareholders.

Ultimately, National Grid will be spending your ratepayer dollars on a solution. Shouldn’t it be the one that reduces your energy needs, improves air quality through electrification, and increases safety by reducing our communities’ exposure to explosive and toxic gas?

Read the 0p-ed by Hank Webster, our Rhode Island Director in the Newport Daily News here.

Massachusetts drivers are starting to buy electric cars again

Clean transportation activists are praising Massachusetts’ efforts to expand its electric vehicle incentives while also arguing for changes that would put vehicles within reach for more households.

….

Electric vehicle sales are slowly rebounding in the state: In September, the number of new purchases submitted for an incentive payment more than doubled from the previous month, from 156 to 339. In October, the number edged up to 345.

These totals fall well short of the peaks reached in 2018, but those who follow the industry are cautiously optimistic, noting that vehicle sales across the board are starting to edge back up from COVID-driven slumps. And the electric vehicle market, they said, is recovering at a slightly faster rate than traditional internal combustion vehicles.

“There is some degree of recovery going on from COVID,” said Jordan Stutt, carbon programs director at the Acadia Center. “Obviously we have a long way to go there, but some people are buying cars again and a lot of those are [electric].”

Read the full article from the Energy News Network here

Commentary: Regional emission-reduction drive must be part of Maine’s transportation solution

One year ago, the Portland Press Herald ran my op-ed (Maine should take part in regional effort to cut transportation pollution, Dec. 29, 2019) calling for Maine to reduce its carbon emissions and transportation costs in “an economical, efficient, and equitable manner.” At that time, a consortium of Northeast and mid-Atlantic states had just announced the Transportation and Climate Initiative regional cap-and-invest plan designed to significantly reduce pollution from cars and trucks and provide critical funding for clean transportation solutions. The Maine Climate Council and its working groups were also rolling on an action plan to tackle the 54 percent of Maine’s greenhouse-gas emissions that emanate from its transportation sector. It was a New Year for environmental hope and progress!

Fast forward to today: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia stepped up and signed an agreement to participate in the Transportation and Climate Initiative. Under the agreement, participating states will focus on their specific priorities, including helping rural and low-income communities in need of more electric cars and trucks, public transit, walkable and bikable neighborhoods, less pollution and a modernized broadband network. In an accompanying statement, eight other states – Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia and even North Carolina committed to continue work on the regional program while pursuing state specific initiatives to reduce emissions and provide clean transportation solutions.

Who’s missing? Maine.

The Maine Climate Council’s report, Maine Won’t Wait: A Four-Year Climate Action Plan, launched earlier this month, highlighted the urgency and scale of our transportation challenges, but failed to deliver adequate solutions. If Maine does not join the Transportation and Climate Initiative, where will the state secure funding for the strategies and actions laid out in the Climate Action Plan? If Maine does not join the conversation, how will we influence development of the model rule and ensure that the Transportation and Climate Initiative works for Maine, especially our rural communities?

Don’t get me wrong, Gov. Mills is and remains a climate leader and led Maine out of eight years of climate denial and rollbacks to steer Maine’s trajectory to more solar, wind, energy efficiency and beneficial electrification in buildings.

Participating in the Transportation and Climate Initiative with our peers across the region should be part of Maine’s transportation solution. By sitting on the sidelines, Maine could miss out on $50 million annually that would bolster our transportation system, support our people and boost our economy. The initiative is the only proposal on the table that guarantees reductions of emissions and provides sufficient, stable and sustainable investments to pay for clean, affordable vehicles, infrastructure and services that benefit all of Maine’s residents.  This is a lost opportunity for leadership on two of Maine’s most critical challenges: reducing pollution from the transportation sector and funding investments to give all Mainers access to affordable, reliable, sustainable transportation options.

It’s important for Maine to participate so we can ensure that the program is designed to benefit the unique needs of a rural state. A recent study details enormous public health benefits from the Transportation and Climate Initiative, including up to $11 billion in annual health benefits, reducing racial health disparities, and avoiding up to 1,100 deaths and 4,700 childhood asthma cases. The Nature Conservancy has documented the clean-energy investments that could be made to expand access and affordability in rural communities using funds that come from a program like the Transportation and Climate Initiative. And surveys indicate that a majority of Mainers support engagement with the Transportation and Climate Initiative.

The good news is that Maine can still participate in the program and receive the cleaner air, improved transportation and strengthened economy that comes with participation – if Gov. Mills signs on in 2021. Maine needs to fully explore every investment opportunity available to create and grow good-paying jobs and rebuild the economy after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Transportation and Climate Initiative’s commitment to direct at least 35 percent of the proceeds to underserved and overburdened communities could send a lifeline to rural parts of the state that are struggling to survive, let alone prosper. It is, once again, a new year for environmental hope and progress. Maine shouldn’t wait for transportation climate action!

Read the full article in the Portland Press Herald here

Connecticut signs on to regional plan to cut transportation emissions

Connecticut has signed on to a ground-breaking plan that will help dramatically lower greenhouse gas and other emissions from transportation and at the same time bring badly needed revenue to the state’s transportation system — and the under-served communities that are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change.

Connecticut will join Massachusetts, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia as the first jurisdictions to commit to the carbon-cutting concept known as the Transportation and Climate Initiative and a final two-year push toward implementing a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, the way the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI, has done for the power sector.

It took 11 years and a relentless slog of working groups, webinars, listening sessions, workshops, memorandums of understanding and other initiatives.

Like RGGI, TCI is a cap-and-invest program and will bring revenue into the state – an estimated $89 million in 2023, increasing to as much as $117 million in 2032. Across all four jurisdictions, the program is expected to bring in $288 million in 2023 alone. In 10 years, that number is expected to reach $380 million a year, and greenhouse gas emissions should be down by 26%, a hefty dent in the reductions the state committed to through its Global Warming Solutions Act.

….

“While we know that there are some who feel this isn’t enough of a commitment for these communities, we’re not going to say it’s fine,” said Amy McLean, who runs the Connecticut office of Acadia Center, the New England and New York environmental advocacy group that has pushed for TCI for years. “We do know that this commitment is a good starting point.”

“The most important thing about this effort,” she said, “is that it’s actually moving forward.”

But she cautioned that TCI is not a silver bullet and the other efforts the state has been making towards cleaner transportation – electric vehicle adoption especially, which has been slow and difficult – have to continue.

“All of these policies need to move forward at the same time,” she said.

Read the full article from the CT Mirror here

A Plan by Eastern States to Cap Tailpipe Emissions Gets Off to a Slow Start

…

Read the full article in the New York Times here

Acadia Center applauds Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island Governors for regional action to reduce tailpipe pollution.

BOSTON — Today, three states and the District of Columbia announced their plan for a regional program to cut tailpipe pollution while delivering much-needed investments in clean, equitable, and modern transportation options. Working together through the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI), Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C. will participate in a cap-and-invest program to revitalize their transportation system and rein in pollution from vehicles, which are the country’s largest source of carbon emissions.

“Through their collaboration on TCI, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island will deliver cleaner, fairer and better transportation options for their residents and cleaner air in the most polluted communities, said Daniel Sosland, Acadia Center’s President. “These states are providing the kind of bipartisan leadership on climate change in the region that we all deserve. Acadia Center is committed to advancing a clean energy future that works for everyone, and major improvements in the transportation sector will help achieve this vision.”

The four jurisdictions participating in the program need to achieve significant emission reductions from the transportation sector to meet their ambitious climate targets. Transportation pollution accounts for 46% of the CO₂ emissions across Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., more than double the contribution to climate change from any other sector. By participating in the TCI program, these jurisdictions will be able to invest hundreds of millions of dollars each year in clean transportation projects that create jobs, boost the economy, improve mobility, and slash pollution.

The collaboration between Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C. represents action at a substantial scale. With a combined GDP of $1.09 trillion, the participating jurisdictions would be the world’s 15^th largest economy, similar in output to Mexico. And the scale of this project is likely to grow. In a separate document released today, the four MOU signatories were joined by eight other TCI member states to assert that they are collaborating on the next steps of the cap-and-invest program’s development, suggesting that the program will expand beyond southern New England and D.C. Notably, that list includes a new TCI member, North Carolina, demonstrating the growing appeal of the TCI framework. All together, these jurisdictions would represent the world’s third largest economy.

As for the details, the TCI jurisdictions have incorporated stakeholder feedback to make the program more equitable and ambitious. Important new provisions have been added to last year’s draft MOU to ensure that overburdened and underserved communities receive at least their proportional share of TCI proceeds, that those communities are included in investment decisions and program design, and that air quality monitors will be deployed in the most polluted communities.

“These commitments represent significant progress at the regional level, but states have much more work to do to develop stakeholder processes and policy solutions that meet the needs of their communities,” said Jordan Stutt, Acadia Center’s Carbon Programs Director. “While an equitably-designed TCI program should benefit overburdened and underserved communities, TCI is just one piece of the puzzle: other action will still be necessary to deliver transportation justice.”

The MOU also charts an ambitious emission reduction trajectory. The emissions cap will decline by 30% from 2023 to 2032, consistent with recommendations Acadia Center submitted on behalf of 200 organizations in November. Reducing CO₂ emissions from transportation fuels by 30% will help states achieve their climate targets while delivering critical improvements in air quality. The TCI program and additional transportation policies are key to realizing Acadia Center’s vision for a just and sustainable future.

        ###

 Acadia Center is a regionally-focused, non-profit organization headquartered in Rockport, Maine, working to advance a clean energy future that benefits all.

Media Contacts

Massachusetts and Regional:
Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director
jstutt@acadiacenter.org, 845-702- 5217

Connecticut:
Amy McLean Salls, Connecticut Director and Senior Policy Advocate
amcleansalls@acadiacenter.org, 860-246-7121 x204

Rhode Island:
Hank Webster, Rhode Island Director and Staff Attorney
hwebster@acadiacenter.org, 401-276-0600 x402

Maine:
Jeff Marks, Maine Director & Senior Policy Advocate
jmarks@acadiacenter.org, 207-236-6470 x304

Massachusetts loses its claim to being the most energy-efficient state

Read the full article in the Boston Globe here.

New Hampshire Must Continue to Push for Energy Efficiency Gains

This holiday season provides a chance for the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to deliver the gift that keeps on giving to Granite Staters: a strong energy efficiency program for 2021 and beyond. New Hampshire energy efficiency programs deliver a diverse set of benefits to consumers including lower overall energy system costs, individual cost savings, improved comfort, and lower overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, not to mention supporting almost 12,000 jobs in that state’s efficiency industry.

The PUC is set to vote on whether or not to approve the 2021-2023 Energy Efficiency Plan that implements the state’s Energy Efficiency Resource Standard. The Plan would require the state’s electric and gas utilities to reduce annual electric demand by 4.5% and fossil gas by 2.8% over 2019 sales. While the Acadia Center supported even more ambitious savings targets of 5% for electric utilities and 3% for gas utilities, we believe that the final Plan represents an effective energy efficiency strategy for action over the next three years. Acadia Center supports the continued progress toward acquisition of all cost-effective energy efficiency resources across all fuel types and sectors, helping New Hampshire residents, businesses, institutions, and low-income families meet their energy needs while reducing their cost of energy.

The Granite State lags its New England neighbors in overall energy efficiency policies and progress according to the recently published American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s 2020 national efficiency state scorecard. While Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont are in the top 10 for overall state-wide energy efficiency policies, with these states saving enough electricity in 2019 to power 250,000 homes for a year, New Hampshire remains stalled in the middle of the pack. While the state has seen improvements in recent years, it must do more to become a regional leader on energy efficiency. New Hampshire residents and businesses deserve to reap the full benefits of robust energy efficiency programs, which not only reduce energy use and costs, but improve public health, support economic growth and employment in energy efficiency sectors, and are consumer-friendly. Acadia Center research indicates that every $1 invested in regional energy efficiency investments yields an average of $3.75 in total benefits. Leaving that kind of money on the table doesn’t make sense for New Hampshire consumers who have some of the highest energy bills in the nation.

This has been a difficult year for all, and Acadia Center understands that residential and businesses customers should not be overburdened with increasing costs. However, as result of the 2019 Granite State test, a cost-benefit calculation that ensures that any and all energy efficiency programs provide benefit to all of the state’s energy consumers, the PUC and state lawmakers can be assured that long-term energy efficiency programs are a sound investment in the state’s future. This Plan allows goals, programs, and budgets to be adjusted during the triennium as needed, while recognizing that the cost-effectiveness savings needed to drive energy efficiency improvements ensures that consumers realize the benefits of these programs. And with a vigorous economic recovery expected in 2021 and beyond, it is essential that the state have in place as strong and robust of an energy efficiency program in place as possible.

Northeast States Again Rank High in 2020 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, but Massachusetts’ Fall to Second Place Highlights Need for Continued Improvement

Rockport, ME – Massachusetts has lost its energy efficiency crown to California, after 9 years on top of the national rankings for efficiency, according to rankings released by the nonpartisan American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). As they have for the past decade, Northeast states performed well in the 2020 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, with Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, and New York filling out the top 5 spots, respectively. Connecticut ranked #7, Maine at #16, and New Hampshire at #18, a slight improvement from the 2019 Scorecard, which ranked New Hampshire at #20.

“Investing in energy efficiency is the best way to reduce the energy burdens faced by consumers in the Northeast,” said Daniel Sosland, Acadia Center’s President. “The region’s continued strong showing in the national rankings is due to the last decade of successful efficiency policies and programs in these states – helping the Northeast lower carbon pollution while providing over $49 billion in economic and public health benefits, region-wide.”

“Massachusetts’ falling to #2 highlights the need to not rest on past success, but instead keep innovating to ensure that the programs are helping to deliver clean, healthy buildings in our poorest neighborhoods, too,” Sosland continued.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on state budgets and policy agendas across the country and has forced hundreds of thousands of people in the clean energy sector out of wo rk, especially energy efficiency contractors. The pandemic has slowed progress on new energy efficiency legislation, and yet, existing efficiency policies and appliance standards continued to help reduce energy use and emissions and save consumers money.

The ACEEE rankings, released annually, are based on scoring in categories including state government initiatives, building efficiency policies, utility and public benefits programs, transportation policies, and appliance standards. The Northeast’s success in the rankings is largely the result of a policy championed by Acadia Center that requires programs to pursue all energy efficiency that is cost-effective, rather than defining a prescribed level of funding, and to involve stakeholders in developing efficiency plans. ACEEE awarded Massachusetts and Rhode Island a near-perfect score in the utility program category, praising the programs for being the largest contributor to state greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. And both Massachusetts and New York have begun to incorporate fuel-neutral savings goals that better align efficiency programs with electrification.

“Over the last ten years, Massachusetts’ strong customer-funded efficiency programs have grown the economy while lowering electric and gas bills and cutting emissions – and they’ll continue to do so.  Massachusetts lost its first-place rank largely because it has not adopted appliance efficiency standards – an area heavily weighted under the scoring rubric,” said Amy Boyd, Director of Policy at Acadia Center and a member of the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council. “Massachusetts should adopt appliance standards, but also take this shift in rankings as a wake-up call that even though our utility efficiency programs are among the best in the nation, they’re not perfect. We need to ensure that all communities and customers can access the efficiency programs and include climate as one of the program’s explicit statutory goals.”

The Northeast is a national leader in energy efficiency, but states can and must do more. Acadia Center is working with states in the Northeast to keep energy efficiency funding high, serve low- and moderate-income communities better, and align energy efficiency programs more closely with climate targets.

Most importantly, many households in the Northeast—particularly those living in older buildings in environmental justice communities—suffer from excessive indoor air pollution, unhealthy temperature swings, and other inadequate living conditions. The communities most impacted by this substandard housing disproportionately consist of people of color. These buildings also emit more climate pollutants than better-weatherized housing. Existing efficiency programs must embrace this chance to marry traditional energy savings with crucially important equity and climate goals. Acadia Center is working with a wide range of partner organizations on policy changes that will enable efficiency programs to seize this opportunity.

Mass., other states near historic agreement to curb transportation emissions

After years of negotiations, Massachusetts and other states on the East Coast are poised to sign a landmark agreement that would constitute one of the nation’s most ambitious efforts to fight climate change.

By the end of the month, a group of 12 states and Washington, D.C., are expected to announce details of the controversial cap-and-invest pact, which would require substantial cuts to transportation emissions, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases.

Called the Transportation Climate Initiative, the accord aims to cap vehicle emissions from Maine to Virginia and require hundreds of fuel distributors in participating states to buy permits for the carbon dioxide they produce. That limit would decline over time, mirroring a similar pact that has reduced power plant emissions in the Northeast, with the goal of reducing tailpipe emissions by as much as 25 percent over the next decade.

….

“Every reputable source of analysis . . . shows that the TCI program will deliver net economic benefits, will be a job creator, and will save us billions of dollars in avoided health costs,” said Jordan Stutt, carbon programs director for the Acadia Center, an environmental advocacy group in Boston. “We need TCI and other policies to deliver cleaner air, better transportation options, and leadership on climate change.”

Read the full article in the Boston Globe here