Advocates Defend Energy Efficiency Programs in Massachusetts

Climate and consumer advocates called on Massachusetts lawmakers to preserve the state’s energy efficiency programs as legislators work to develop an energy affordability bill in response to high gas and electricity costs over the past winter.

Advocates have expressed concerns that lawmakers may roll back efficiency spending to provide short-term relief to ratepayers. They defended the state’s Mass Save efficiency program at a hearing held by the legislature’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy (TUE) on Sept. 25.

Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at the Acadia Center, emphasized the region-wide wholesale markets price suppression benefits of these investments.

He pointed to the ISO-NE capacity scarcity event June 24, when locational marginal prices spiked to $1,110/MWh between 6 and 7 p.m., and highlighted an Acadia analysis estimating that demand reductions associated with behind-the-meter solar saved the region $19.4 million during the day. (See Extreme Heat Triggers Capacity Deficiency in New England) and Behind-the-meter Solar Shines in ISO-NE Capacity Deficiency Event.)

“ISO-NE does not similarly track the impact of energy efficiency. However, make no mistake: But for those critical investments we have made in energy efficiency over the years, those price spikes would have been dramatically worse,” Murray said.

Rep. Jeffrey Turco (D) appeared more skeptical about efficiency investments, saying that “to the consumer, we keep hearing that we’re saving $3.41 for every dollar invested, but the cost of electricity is going up every year, and it’s by design.”

Increasing the cost of electricity in the short term in pursuit of long-term benefits causes consumer frustration “because the utility keeps going up, and despite saying, ‘Yes, we’re saving you money,’ the proof is not in the pudding on a monthly basis,” Turco said.

In response, Murray said, “One of the most difficult challenges of energy efficiency is that it’s difficult to prove a negative.” He stressed that while the value of efficiency can be hard to quantify precisely, “if we don’t continue to do this, you’re asking constituents in five, 10, 15, 20 years to bear significantly higher costs.”

To read the full article from RTO Insider, click here.