Opinion: New Jersey’s energy future must — and will be — electric

It may seem like a tall order: Make changes to your home to lower your energy bills, remove harmful pollutants from the air you breathe and help in the global fight against climate change.

But it’s not as hard as it might sound.

According to a new report commissioned by New Jersey Conservation Foundation, it’s possible for New Jersey residents to achieve all three. The report, “The Future Is Electric,” finds that consumers could see more than a 50% reduction in their energy bills by installing highly efficient electric heating and cooling systems and weatherizing their houses. That amounts to substantial savings in a household budget.

What’s more, transitioning away from burning fossil fuels inside homes would mean cleaner and healthier indoor air, and fewer outdoor emissions contributing to global warming and over 250 premature deaths annually in New Jersey.

Prepared by the Acadia Center, a New England-based climate research and advocacy nonprofit, the report also highlights the need for New Jersey and its utilities to provide more incentives for consumers to invest in efficient electric heating — similar to the popular rebates offered to consumers who buy electric vehicles.

Coincidentally, “The Future Is Electric” was released one day after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a dire warning that our rapidly warming climate is wreaking havoc across the planet, and that time is running out to stabilize it.

Unless greenhouse gas emissions are quickly and drastically reduced, the IPCC report said, climate change impacts — including floods, storms, droughts and other extreme weather events — will overwhelm the ability of nature and humanity to adapt.

New Jersey is making progress on reducing the state’s reliance on fossil fuels to generate electricity. This state we’re in requires that by 2030, 50% of the electricity we consume will come from in-state and regional solar and wind.

The state is also working to reduce the state’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions — vehicles and transportation — with generous rebates to buyers of electric vehicles.

One piece of the clean energy puzzle that has gotten considerably less attention is the building sector. Many New Jersey residents don’t realize that houses and buildings are the state’s second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

When you think about it, it makes sense: Our state has hundreds of thousands of homes and buildings. Each building heated with natural gas, heating oil or propane has its own on-site combustion system, which produces both indoor and outdoor emissions. Polluted air can cause or exacerbate many health conditions, including asthma.

What’s the alternative to fossil fuel systems? Many consumers are turning to a newer technology known as air source heat pumps.

“Heat pumps are essentially a super-efficient air conditioner that can work backwards,” explained Amy Boyd, policy director at the Acadia Center. They work by moving heat from outdoor air indoors, and are effective even in cold climates.

Air source heat pumps are far more energy efficient than fossil fuel combustion. By combining heat pump technology with weatherizing “leaky” houses, Boyd said, consumers could see their energy bills cut in half.

Heat pumps create no emissions, either indoors or outdoors, so families can breathe cleaner, healthier air. This is especially important in New Jersey’s urban areas, which have the state’s highest levels of air pollution.

So what’s stopping New Jersey consumers from reaping these benefits? Mostly money.

Heat pump systems have higher up-front costs, and New Jersey is behind other northeastern states in offering financial incentives to motivate homeowners to make the switch.

“One thing that states like Massachusetts are doing is putting their money where their climate policy is,” said Boyd.

In states that offer substantial rebates, Boyd noted, heat pump systems can be comparable in cost or even cheaper than fossil fuel combustion systems.

It’s time for New Jersey to get with the program and support a switch to clean, electrically-heated buildings.

The Murphy administration has already committed to producing more electricity with clean, renewable technology — and getting more drivers in electric vehicles. The next logical step is to make it affordable for residents to upgrade their homes to safe, efficient, non-polluting heating systems.

One advocate for stronger incentives is State Sen. Andrew Zwicker, who spoke at a briefing on the release of “The Future Is Electric” report.

“New Jersey has to be a leader here,” Zwicker said. “If we can provide financial incentives, consumers can have choices” for better health, lower energy bills and fighting climate change.

“This is a key moment, not just in New Jersey’s history or U.S. history, but globally,” Zwicker added. “The IPCC report that just came out makes it clear that global warming is outpacing our ability to cope. The oceans are rising, the forests are burning, and carbon dioxide levels continue their upward march. It’s now a question of, are we willing to take this moment and move forward?”

New Jersey’s answer needs to be yes.

Read the full article at northjersey.com.

OpEd: A chilling impact on Connecticut’s EV adoption rates

Massport has a $1 billion plan to cut climate pollution. Critics say it’s nowhere near enough.

In one of the state’s largest efforts to curb carbon emissions, the Massachusetts Port Authority unveiled plans Thursday to spend $1 billion over the coming decade to reduce its contribution to the pollution that causes climate change.

The officials who operate Logan International Airport, Flynn Cruiseport, and the Paul W. Conley Terminal — among other airports and institutions — released what they’re calling a roadmap to effectively eliminate emissions under their control by 2031, the 75th anniversary of the authority’s founding.

“This is a real plan, tied to real actions, without smoke and mirrors,” said Lisa Wieland, the chief executive of Massport. “This isn’t going to be easy … but we need to reduce the impact on the communities that surround us. The cost of doing nothing isn’t an option.”

When fully implemented, the plan would mean a reduction of about 110,000 metric tons of carbon emissions a year, the equivalent of removing roughly 24,000 cars from the road.

Environmental advocates praised Massport for being among the largest state agencies to release a plan that seriously grapples with what it can do to substantially reduce its contribution to climate change.

“This is the kind of analysis and planning that all public and quasi-public entities should be doing,” said Elizabeth Turnbull Henry, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts.

She said she hoped Massport would become “a laboratory for climate innovation.”

“Massport could be one of the best places in the world to pilot technologies to transform aviation and other hard-to-decarbonize transportation sectors,” she said.

Yet critics noted that Massport’s plan relies heavily on carbon offsets to achieve so-called net-zero emissions in the near term and only addresses the pollution under Massport’s direct control — not the much larger sources of greenhouse gases, such as the planes that fly in and out of Logan or the cruise and cargo ships that dock at its terminals.

Under the plan, which remains more of a sketch than a blueprint, just 12.5 percent of Massport’s emissions would be subject to reductions. Of that pollution, 40 percent would require offsets to achieve net zero. That means the authority will have to purchase pollution credits or invest in programs that reduce emissions elsewhere.

Massport officials said they intend to stop producing emissions entirely by 2040, meaning the authority would no longer require offsets to be carbon neutral.

Some state officials and environmental advocates said they were skeptical of Massport’s plan, noting that the quasi-public agency is obligated under the state’s new climate law to effectively eliminate its emissions by 2050.

“The effort lacks imagination,” said state Senator Mike Barrett, a Lexington Democrat and one of the authors of the climate law that took effect last year. “So far, there’s no indication [Massport is] hungry to move into the vanguard, become a role model.”

Massport’s plan, which must be approved by its board, hinges on significant changes to how the agency heats its terminals at Logan and other buildings, produces hot water, and otherwise uses energy.

That includes updating its gas-powered central heating plant at Logan; replacing its large fleet of diesel trucks, shuttle buses, and other ground-support equipment with those that draw power from electricity; installing energy-efficient lighting across all its facilities; and generating more power from on-site renewable energy sources, such as solar panels.

Those changes will impose significant costs as the agency continues to suffer from the pandemic and faces an uncertain future. Last fiscal year, as passenger traffic at Logan plummeted and few cruise ships visited Boston, Massport earned little more than $650 million in revenue — a decline of more than a quarter from before the pandemic.

“It will be more of a challenge,” said Jennifer Mehigan, a spokeswoman for Massport, noting that this fiscal year’s projections for passenger traffic at Logan are about 40 percent lower than in 2019 — and that was before the war in Ukraine led to a surge in fuel costs.

The plan remains a broad outline and doesn’t specify how it will achieve its goals, such as generating carbon-free heat across Logan’s sprawling terminals. Given that many decisions have yet to be made, environmental advocates said it was difficult to assess whether Massport’s plan was sufficient to live up to Wieland’s promises.

“The content we have seen to date is not a clear plan, so I have reservations on what emissions reductions they will actually achieve,” said Kyle Murray, a senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center, an environmental advocacy group in Boston.

He urged Massport officials to be more ambitious and do more as soon as possible to create their own renewable energy and storage technology, sign power purchase agreements with producers of clean energy, and accelerate programs to replace fossil fuels with electricity.

A plan that relies on fewer offsets over the coming decade would be more credible, Murray and others said.

“The devil will be in the details where offsets are concerned,” said Cammy Peterson, director of clean energy at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council, noting it’s often hard to accurately measure the benefits of offsets compared with actual reductions.

Others said they hope officials will do more to consider how to reduce the 87.5 percent of its emissions that aren’t included in its plans.

For example, Massport could do more to compel vendors at the airport and elsewhere to reduce their emissions; invest more in developing so-called sustainable aviation fuels; make it easier to get to their terminals on public transportation or in shared rides; and provide incentives for the speedier electrification of the taxi and ride-for-hire industry.

Massport officials said they plan to do all those things, including taking other steps to reduce their overall emissions, such as enabling cruise ships to draw power from shore rather than from their idling engines, which is a large source of emissions.

“We have high-level pathways,” Wieland said. “The details still have to be worked out.”

Environmental advocates said they look forward to seeing those details.

“Our major concern is that Massport’s focus is exceedingly narrow here,” said Bradley Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation in Boston. “This is less a plan and more a plan for a plan. Massport could do a lot more to reduce emissions than what’s laid out.”

Chris Marchi, vice president of East Boston group Airport Impact Relief, Inc., urged Massport officials to limit the growth of Logan — and its other airports in Worcester and at the Hanscom Air Force Base — as well as discourage visits by single-occupancy vehicles by raising fees.

If passenger traffic resumes the steady increases that occurred before the pandemic, the proposed emissions cuts could be moot if emissions increase in other ways, he said.

“As much as it is an admirable goal to reach zero emissions, these efforts are more green-washing than they are serious responses,” Marchi said.

At a Massport board meeting on Thursday morning, in which officials explained their plan to reduce emissions, several board members raised concerns that it doesn’t do enough to reduce the authority’s overall pollution.

“As someone who lives almost a stone’s throw from the airport, I’m concerned, as is the community in which I live, about the overall impacts of Massport on the community,” said John Nucci, a former city councilor from East Boston who serves on Massport’s board. “I don’t want to see a situation where people who live around the airport have to wait until Massport has spent $1 billion … before that overall impact gets substantially reduced.”

Wieland responded by noting that the plan remains “aspirational.”

“We have a lot of work left to do,” she said.

Read the full article in The Boston Globe here.

Mass. is drafting a new climate-friendly building code. Here’s what you need to know

In Massachusetts, the statewide building code mandates a set of energy efficiency standards, like, for instance, your walls and windows need to hold in a certain amount of heat. A little over a decade ago, some cities and towns began clamoring for an even more climate-friendly building code to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In response, the Legislature established the so-called “stretch code,” a set of greener efficiency standards that towns could opt into.

Since 2009, when the stretch code was enacted, 299 out of 351 municipalities in the state have adopted it. Fast forward to today, and several cities and towns want an even “stretchier” green code — one that would allow them to ban fossil fuel hookups in new construction projects or major renovations.

Last year, after Gov. Charlie Baker signed the landmark Climate Act of 2021 into law, the state’s Department of Energy Resources (DOER) began designing this new optional building code. It was unclear whether the final version would allow some progressive cities and towns to adopt an all-electric building code, but many environmentalists kept their fingers crossed.

In February, DOER published the long-awaited draft proposal and began soliciting public feedback. Reactions so far have been mixed; many environmentalists want the final code to give towns more flexibility to require all electric construction, while many in the development world are relieved this option was omitted.

Building codes can be a wonky subject. But if you’re concerned about climate change and want to understand a powerful tool Massachusetts has to fight it, here, in simple English, is what you need to know:

Why does the building code matter?

Buildings are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts. Between oil and gas heating, hot water heaters and gas stoves, they’re responsible for about 27% of our annual emissions.

What’s more, DOER estimates that at least a quarter of all the square footage of buildings that will exist in 2050 in Massachusetts hasn’t been constructed yet.

In general, it’s much easier and cheaper to build an eco-friendly home or office building from scratch than to retrofit an existing structure, which is why environmentalists consider new construction the “low hanging fruit” of this decarbonization effort.

But under current Massachusetts law, a city or town is not permitted to mandate all electric construction or ban fossil fuel hookups. Attorney General Maura Healey made that clear in 2020, when she slapped down a Brookline ordinance that would end gas hookups in new homes.

In a letter, Healey explained that while she supported the town’s goal of climate-friendly construction, state law says residents have the right to all utility services (She shot down a second attempt by the town earlier this year.)

As it became clear that individual towns and cities couldn’t create greener building rules on their own, the Legislature decided to step in. Cue the Climate Act of 2021.

What does last year’s climate law do?

As part of a far-reaching climate bill, the Legislature included language directing the Department of Energy Resources to create another set of even greener building codes — what some took to calling the “new stretch code” or the “net zero stretch code,” but what we will continue to refer to as the “stretchier code.”

The goal was to create a legal way for cities and towns to experiment with greener construction, said state Sen. Michael Barrett, one of the bill’s authors. In an email, a spokeswoman for the AG’s office confirmed that a new stretchier code allowing cities to require all-electric construction would be legal.

The entire state, including the building sector, needs to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, Barrett said, “so we need to make sure that new construction over-delivers.”

While climate activists cheered the provision, many in the real estate and development community were not happy. The bill, one prominent real estate group warned, was vague to the point of unworkable, and might increase construction costs during a statewide housing crisis.

In the final version of the law, the department had to design a new stretchier building code that included a definition of a net zero building and net zero performance standards. It does not, to be clear, require cities and towns that adopt this new code to put an all-electric building mandate into place.

What’s in the new stretchier code?

On Feb. 8, the department published a topline summary for the new building code. It’s known officially as the “municipal opt-in specialized stretch energy code,” but we are going to keep calling it the stretchier code.

The proposed stretchier code creates different standards for different types of buildings based on something called the HERS rating, or Home Energy Rating System. HERS is a nationally recognized measurement of a home’s efficiency that’s determined by a professional auditor; the lower the rating, the more energy efficient the home is.

For reference, the average home in Massachusetts has a HERS rating of 51.

In the new stretchier code, towns are given three options for low rise residential homes and buildings:

• For a home that’s all electric, the HERS rating must be 45 or lower.
• For a home that has fossil fuel heating, the HERS rating must be 42 or lower. It also must have solar panels where feasible and be pre-wired to become all electric in the future.
• Homes that are extremely energy efficient and meet the so-called “passive home” standard are automatically compliant if they’re all electric or pre-wired to be all electric in the future.

Homes in all three categories also need the necessary wiring for electric vehicle charging.

According to the Department of Energy Resources, implementing this new stretchier code will save builders, homeowners and renters a total of $21 billion in construction and heating or operating costs. What’s more, it could cut 500,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and 694,000 tons by 2035.

The department wanted “to explore and understand the least-cost path to decarbonizing our buildings so that we can maintain a vibrant economy, meet our state’s needs for new and affordable housing, while also addressing our climate mandates,” said Maggie McCarey, director of the department’s energy efficiency division during a presentation about the new code last month.

The ‘net zero’ sticking point

“Net zero” has come up a few times in this discussion, and the casual definition seems clear: A building, on the whole, can’t add carbon to the atmosphere. But there’s no actual federal or international standard that Massachusetts could follow.

Think about it like this: Can a house with natural gas heating and solar panels be considered net zero?

And “fully electric” is another sticky term: Does the house need to generate all or some of its own electricity on site, or can it be fully electric and get all of its power from the grid? What if the grid isn’t fully carbon-free yet?

You see how this gets complicated.

DOER’s presentation included a slide that said net zero construction “does not necessitate onsite or offsite renewables, nor the assumption that an individual building is net-zero energy” because “a building becomes net zero energy when MA electric grid is net zero.”

If you’re confused, you’re not alone.

The department did not make anyone available for an interview to help clarify this point, but energy experts that WBUR spoke with think DOER is saying that homes that meet the standards of the new stretchier code are to be considered net zero.

Why are environmentalists concerned?

After publishing the draft proposal, DOER held five public meetings to solicit feedback. During at least one of those meetings, the comments were overwhelmingly critical and fell along three lines of argument.

First, it was evident that many hoped DOER would provide a legal avenue for cities and towns to ban new fossil fuel hookups, which it expressly did not do. One speaker called it “a slap in the face.”

State Rep. Tommy Vitolo suggested the new code require a home be all electric if it can be constructed at the same price as a gas powered one. Or that it allow gas heating only if all-electric construction isn’t feasible.

Second, many also raised questions about the definition of “net zero,” namely, that the presentation didn’t seem to include a succinct and workable one.

Ben Butterworth, senior manager of climate and energy analysis at the nonprofit Acadia Center, said he understands why many environmentalists were upset. DOER is “kind of putting their thumb on the scale to push developers toward building all electric,” but they’re “not explicitly making the requirement,” he said. And that’s not what people were hoping for.

Finally, another area of contention was whether cities and towns that adopt the stretchier code have the necessary leeway to try different things.

State Sen. Michael Barrett, one of the chief architects of the Climate Act and a strong proponent of decarbonization, told WBUR that the Legislature’s intent was to allow so-called “vanguard communities” like Brookline, Lexington and Arlington to take the lead and experiment.

Hypothetically speaking, maybe Brookline votes to ban all fossil fuel hookups in new construction right away, while Lexington attempts to phase it in more slowly or allow bigger carve outs for exceptions. And maybe Arlington allows natural gas stoves, but not home heating.

There’s nothing in the Climate Act that says municipalities must adopt all electric building requirements, he said, but it was supposed to give them that option.

“An absolutely rigid commitment to standardization violates the kind of experimentation that we need to do in this era of climate change,” he added.

Why are some developers concerned?

Anastasia Nicolaou, vice president of policy and public affairs at NAIOP Massachusetts, which represents commercial developers in the state, said she was relieved to see that the proposal did not allow towns to require all-electric construction. She was also pleased to see it didn’t provide an infinite number of pathways for towns that want to experiment, because, as she explained, developers don’t like operating in a world with that level of uncertainty.

Still, she remained concerned about the lack of details in the proposal and the timeline it sets forward. According to DOER, the rules will be finalized at the end of this year and ready for adoption next year.

Nicolaou added that while NAIOP and many developers it represents are supportive of decarbonization efforts, they’re concerned it’s all happening too quickly. It’s hard to not know what many cities and towns might adopt as their new building code a year from now, she said.

So where does this leave us?

The public has until Friday, March 18 at 5 p.m. to submit comments about the new stretchier code.

After this window closes, DOER will consider the feedback and write a comprehensive draft of the new building code. The public will once again have a chance to provide feedback, and DOER aims to publish the final code by the end of the year.

Read the full article in WBUR News here.

Doudera’s equity and environmental justice work progresses

An affirmative vote on March 16 from the Maine Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee has advanced a bill, LD 2018, to implement recommendations regarding the inclusion of equity considerations in regulatory decision making. The groundwork for this legislation was laid last session by Rep. Vicki Doudera (D-Camden) with her bill, now Public Law 2021, Chapter 279: An Act to Require Consideration of Climate Impacts by the Public Utilities Commission and to Incorporate Equity Considerations in Decision Making by State Agencies.

LD 2018 establishes definitions for “environmental justice” and “front line communities,” and sets methods to incorporate the weighing of equity decisions in deliberations at the state’s Department of Environmental Protection and the Public Utilities Commission. The measure comes from a report written by the Governor’s Office of Policy, Innovation and the Future, based on dozens of conversations about environmental and climate justice in Maine, as well as three public forums that drew participation from people across the state who represented environmental justice; climate action; public health; tribal nations; members of low-income communities; younger and older Mainers and representatives from state and quasi-state agencies.

“The virtual public forums were extremely well-attended and showed us how important this work is to a wide cross section of the people of Maine,” said Doudera. “For too long, vulnerable voices have been left out of the critical decisions that impact neighborhoods, and it’s time we listen to everyone.”

The Camden legislator said she is pleased with the progress of LD 2018 thus far. “The public hearing on March 14 was very positive. Not only does the bill take the important step of defining in statute what we mean when we say, ‘environmental justice’ and ‘front line communities,’ but it will make PUC proceedings more accessible to everyday Mainers. It also requires our DEP to adopt rules ensuring that folks in impacted communities are provided with fair and equitable access to the department’s decision-making processes.”

Doudera said it was especially gratifying to work closely with people from her district on the bill. “Jessica Scott, a new Camden resident and senior climate advisor at GOPIF, did an incredible job — she managed the forums and wrote the 24-page report. Acadia Center, based in Rockport, reached out with the initial idea for the bill back in late 2020, and Dan Sosland, Jeff Marks and I worked with other environmental groups to get it passed and signed into law.”

Doudera noted that LD 2018 faces further votes in the Legislature before going to Governor Mills’ desk.

“I’m very grateful for all of the support this work has received and hope it continues going forward,” she said. “No matter what happens, I’m happy that I stepped up to sponsor the legislation and put in the time necessary to get this far, because the path has led to some amazing conversations and outcomes, and it is important, gratifying work.”

Doudera (D-Camden) is serving her second term in the Maine Legislature, representing the towns of Camden, Islesboro, and Rockport. She is a member of the Environment and Natural Resources Committee and chairs the legislative Gun Safety Caucus. You can reach her at victoria.doudera@legislature.maine.gov.

Read the full article in The Camden Herald here. 

Direct-To-Consumer EV Enthusiasts Try Again

Supporters of legalizing direct-to-consumer sales of certain electric vehicles in Connecticut made their case before the legislature’s Transportation Committee Monday, arguing it was time to pass a long-debated exception for companies like Tesla or Rivian.

Connecticut law requires auto manufacturers to sell vehicles through franchise dealerships. For years, electric-only manufacturers like Tesla and, more recently, Rivian and Lucid have sought an exemption. The bill has stalled in the past under lobbying efforts by Connecticut dealerships.

During a public hearing on this year’s bill, supporters often presented the policy as an economic boon and a step towards increasing consumer uptake of electric vehicles and reducing the environmental impact of Connecticut commuters.

“It’s very clear from my research that every car that’s electric instead of gasoline will improve our air quality,” Ken Gillingham, a Yale economics professor, told lawmakers. Gillingham disputed the dire economic impact which state auto dealers have predicted if an exception is made for strictly EV companies.

Amy McLean, Connecticut director of the Acadia Center, said that auto dealers have not suffered job losses in other states which have allowed direct-to-consumer exceptions. Connecticut should amend its “regressive and restrictive” EV sales policies, she said.

“To be quite honest, this bill’s time has come,” McLean said. “How much longer are we going to wait for us to able to move the ball forward, look at the face of what it is in our future, and be brave enough to do the right thing on this bill?”

But while proponents contended the policy’s time had come, others wondered if its time had already passed. Increasingly, traditional automobile companies offer their own electric vehicle models. Chip Gengras, president of Gengras Motor Cars, pointed to electric products manufactured by Ford, Volkswagen, and Volvo.

“If you take just those three brands, they will outsell Tesla in 2022,” Gengras said. “The game has changed significantly and all the OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] are involved.”

Wayne Weikel, director of state affairs at the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, said every auto manufacturer would like to sell electric vehicles to Connecticut consumers. Lucid, Rivian and Tesla were only unique in the sense that they wanted a carve-out in state law in order to do so, he said.

“You would think that there is some law in Connecticut that is prohibiting these companies from selling their products in your state. There is no such law,” Weikel said. “They could already be selling here. All they have to do is follow the same rules on auto distribution that every other automaker is required by law to follow.”

Even one of the bill’s legislative proponents, Rep. Jonathan Steinberg, D-Westport, remarked on the changing nature of the electric vehicle market. Industry trends will impact the necessity for both direct sales and traditional dealers as the increasing number of electric vehicles change the types of support consumers need, Steinberg said.

“I have seen with each passing year, that the facts on the ground have changed, the landscape on the ground is evolving even more rapidly than some would’ve thought even as recently as a couple years ago,” Steinberg said.

Daniel Witt, director of state and local public policy for Lucid Motors, questioned whether the committee felt it could afford to wait for dealers and traditional manufacturers to change their business models. Last year the vast majority of vehicles sold by dealers were internal combustion models and dealerships were profitable, he said.

“We need to ask ourselves whether or not the presence of these EV companies is really the straw that’s going to break the camel’s back,” Witt said. “We would submit to you that the historical record both in the last 10 years and certainly more recent would strongly seem to suggest that everyone will be fine.”

Read the full article at CTNewsJunkie here.

OpEd: Van Welie is wrong about natural gas

In response to Russia’s unjust invasion of Ukraine, the European Union announced it will rapidly accelerate its transition from natural gas – much of which it gets from Russia – to renewables. Reuters quotes EU climate policy chief Frans Timmermans saying, “It’s hard, bloody hard. But it’s possible.”

What does this have to do with New England?

New England also depends on the global natural gas market. As the EU cuts gas imports from Russia, it’s likely to import more gas in liquefied form from the United States. This stands to drive up both natural gas prices and electricity prices in New England. Natural gas prices impact electricity because, in addition to home heating, New England relies on natural gas to fuel the power plants that produce about half of its electricity.

Like the EU, New England is also working to transition off gas to a clean, electric economy. The urgency of climate change, together with the volatility of escalating fossil fuel prices tied to unstable foreign governments, require the region to make this transition now, not in 10 or 15 years. The region also needs more non-gas fuels to ensure the lights stay on through the winter when gas is highest in demand here and around the globe. Making this change will require the transformation of regional markets that have long locked us into fossil fuels, but we are up to this challenge.

In his February 26, 2022 column in CommonWealth, Gordon van Welie, the CEO of New England’s regional electricity market manager, ISO-New England, suggested that we can’t have a reliable electric grid powered by clean energy until new technologies come along. Van Welie cited green hydrogen and modular nuclear reactors as two key tools to ensure the region’s reliability without gas. On other occasions he has listed long-duration storage as a third non-gas option for reliability. As none of these technologies is usable now, van Welie’s conclusion is that New England must continue to rely on natural gas.

The experts, however, say such new technologies are not needed to decarbonize the electric grid until we get much closer to 100 percent renewable energy. Until then, our reliability needs can be met by more common types of resources such as four-hour energy storage, distributed resources like solar, and flexible load – which incrementally ramps up or down technologies readily available in our homes like heat pumps, hot water heaters, and EV chargers.

For example, a Stanford study published this winter concluded that batteries available now can help keep the electric grid stable, along with flexible load and demand management. The National Renewable Energy Laboratories has similarly found that flexible load “offers high value in supporting a highly electrified, renewables-based” energy grid.

Why then does Gordon van Welie still say we cannot quickly shake the region’s overreliance on gas? Perhaps ISO-New England thinks making the transition off gas is too hard for a region that’s long relied on fossil fuels, but it’s not.

Last May, when ISO-New England first proposed eliminating the so-called minimum offer price rule, which is a regional market rule that subsidizes gas power plants to stay in the market, it assured stakeholders across the region that it could remove this gas subsidy in 2023 without undue risks to grid reliability.

ISO-New England held this position right up until January, when it suddenly started lobbying for a delay to the reform so that more gas power plants could continue to stay online. It provided no data but pointed to vague potential risks to a grid where gas starts to become less common – and suggested delaying the reforms would be the easy path. But there’s nothing easy about a path that locks us into irreversible climate damage, price volatility, and over reliance on a single fuel.

If we open up New England’s markets to energy storage, flexible load, and offshore wind that blows strong in the winter, we will have clean resources that are reliable and perform well when we need them most. With these resources, we can do things that in the past seemed too hard with new confidence. The risks of not doing so are too great.

Gov. Charlie Baker and the other elected leaders of the New England states should oppose ISO-New England’s efforts to delay the market reforms the region needs to move off fossil fuels without more damage and higher costs. They should press ISO-New England to open the region’s markets further to clean electric resources like energy storage and flexible load that can help ensure reliability as we electrify our economy with homegrown renewables. These reforms won’t change the world today, but they can help change it tomorrow.

Read the full OpEd in CommonWealth Magazine here.

A Company Backed by This Mega Oligarch Helped Kill Clean Power in Maine

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s savage assault on Ukraine has shocked the world, galvanized global democracies, and sent fuel prices surging.

But months before Kremlin troops poured into the country, a company tied to one of the regime’s erstwhile elite allies fought and won a major battle in the Maine woods. And the outcome of that saga will have its own ramifications for the future of the world and its energy supply.

A mere 412,086 residents of the Pine Tree State—less than 38 percent of the eligible electorate—voted in the November referendum that decided the fate of the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) project. The scheme would have linked the Maine and Massachusetts electrical grids with 1200 megawatts of renewable hydroelectricity from Quebec. The 243,943 people who voted against construction of the 145-mile transmission line did so against the wishes not only of Gov. Janet Mills, but of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, who tweeted just days before the plebiscite about the benefits the already-underway venture would deliver to the environment and the economy.

Despite receiving approval from multiple Maine agencies and from the Army Corps of Engineers, securing a presidential permit for cross-border infrastructure, and installing some 120 structures and completing much of the tree clearance, the NECEC lost on Election Day. And Calpine, owner of the state’s biggest power generator and the enormous natural gas plant in the town of Westbrook, won—as did one of the company’s largest shareholders, Access Industries and its owner Len Blavatnik.

Born in Soviet-controlled Odessa in 1978, Blavatnik emigrated to the United States with his family as a young man and completed his degree at Columbia University. He founded Access Industries in 1986, a few years before receiving his master’s in business administration at Harvard. Through a spokesman, his company declined to comment on Calpine’s activities in Maine.

Today, Blavatnik is known in the West for posing with celebrities in his capacity as head of Warner Music Group, and for his profuse philanthropy. His family name adorns institutions in the U.S., Britain, and Israel, and in 2017, Queen Elizabeth knighted him in recognition of his generosity.

But the mogul owes most of his estimated $33.4 billion fortune to his dealings in the old USSR., where he began dabbling in the 1990s, experts say.

“Len Blavatnik is one of the top oligarchs in Russia,” Dr. Anders Aslund, a former economic advisor to the Russian and Ukrainian governments, told The Daily Beast. “He just happens to be a U.S. citizen.”

According to Aslund, American citizenship has shielded Blavatnik from the sanctions that hit two of his biggest former business partners under legislation passed in 2018: Viktor Vekselberg, with whom Blavatnik once ran one of the biggest Russian oil concerns prior to a 2013 sale to state-owned Rosneft, and aluminum tycoon Oleg Deripaska.

Like other men who accrued vast fortunes by gaining control of Russian heavy industries, Blavatnik belongs to the uppermost stratum of the infamously corrupt country’s society, Aslund said. Such a privileged perch was only possible by way of tight ties to the Putin regime, according to Aslund, who published a book on the nation’s crony capitalist system in 2019.

“An oligarch essentially means you are at least a billionaire, and that you have very good relations with the Kremlin,” Aslund explained. “That is a precondition for success.”

Blavatnik has long denied being an oligarch. A Financial Times profile noted Blavatnik’s PR team stipulates to publications he not be referred to as such before granting interviews (the paper also cited Russian officials as saying Blavatnik was never personally a “regular visitor” to the Kremlin). But Aslund is far from alone in his assessment; the Free Russia Forum, founded by dissident chess champion Garry Kasparov, placed him on its “Putin’s List” of accomplices and enablers—and media outlets have declined his requests to stop applying the term.

In defense of its owner, Access Industries highlighted a statement in the FT piece by since-jailed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who praised Blavatnik’s charity and distinguished him from the crew surrounding Putin.

“At least university campuses get built,” Navalny told the publication in 2019. “As far as Russia and I are concerned, he’s not a political oligarch. He isn’t buying newspapers here, he isn’t intimidating journalists, he basically isn’t involved with Putin at all.”

However, Access Industries does hold a majority stake in one of Russia’s biggest TV and movie production companies, which has exclusive rights to air HBO’s library of content in the country. Earlier this year, the media giant revealed it would not be broadcasting HBO’s documentary on Navalny’s 2020 poisoning, which he and others have blamed on the Kremlin.

Access also asserted that “less than than 1 percent of Access’ investments are in any way Russian-related.”

However much the company has diversified his portfolio, Aslund asserted that Blavatnik’s main interest remains petrochemicals and fossil fuels. Between 2005 and 2007, Blavatnik’s company gained control of the Netherlands-based LyondellBasell and its massive Houston refinery. Corporate documents show that LyondellBasell has sold millions of dollars worth of gas each year since at least 2017.

Access Industries, in a joint maneuver with venture fund Energy Capital Partners and the Canadian federal pension system, acquired Calpine itself in a $17.1 billion deal in 2018. The largest natural gas and geothermal electricity producer in the nation, Calpine made headlines when plants failed in its home state of Texas in the 2021 winter blackout. Its stations in Corpus Christi and Hayward, California, also suffered explosions over the summer.

Calpine operates the natural gas-fired generation facility in Westbrook, Maine, that federal Energy Information Administration figures show is far and away the largest single power producer in the state, pumping out more than a million megawatt-hours in 2020.

Calpine did not address their ownership structure in a statement to The Daily Beast, and characterized itself as “only a minority participant” in the political push to defeat the hydropower corridor, an apparent allusion to other energy firms’ heavy investment in the effort. The company also noted that a handful of local conservation groups joined the fight against the NECEC.

“We’re pleased to support local voters and environmental leaders who felt the project was little more than greenwashing and a ‘bad deal for Maine that was flawed from the very beginning,’” said a corporate spokesman, noting the firm’s own commitments to emissions reduction.

But this ignores the leadership role Calpine played in the fierce and costly campaign to persuade first authorities, and then the public, to block the project.

It was Calpine, along with two smaller power producers, that unsuccessfully begged the Maine Public Utilities Commission in 2018 to block the plan to channel hydroelectricity in from Canada. It was Calpine that bankrolled two studies asserting the project would increase carbon emissions by depriving other areas of hydroelectricity and by undercutting local renewable energy development (power supplier Hydro-Quebec disputed the first conclusion, asserting a recent expansion would grant it capacity to serve all its customers).

And it was Calpine that appealed to the Department of Energy in early 2020, urging it to block the NECEC’s application to construct its conduit to Canada.

The company’s concerns were explicitly financial: it feared that the NECEC would flood the region with so much cheap electricity that its own assets would become unprofitable.

“We’re concerned about the long-term viability of our operations in Maine,” John Flumerfelt, Calpine’s director of government and regulatory affairs, told Maine Public Radio in 2019.

In December of that year, Flumerfelt became the principal officer of a new political action committee, Mainers for Local Power. Calpine co-founded the group with Vistra Corp., which owns a plant in Maine. The PAC’s treasurer was an attorney with a firm that also works for Calpine. To date, Calpine has dumped more than $3.2 million into the PAC; also backed by Vistra and Nextera Energy, the PAC bankrolled the signature-gathering effort to get the question to block the clean energy corridor on the ballot. (The other two energy firms did not respond to a request for comment.)

Flumerfelt was ubiquitous throughout the process, appearing at numerous public events, volunteering constant commentary to local news, and even drafting his own family members into the petitioning process.

Mainers for Local Power and another committee it financed inundated the airwaves and social media with advertisements attacking the project. Particularly devastating, local politicos said, were efforts casting the referendum as a way for voters to strike back at the unpopular distributor Central Maine Power, which owns much of the grid the NECEC would serve and shares a parent company with the entity behind the project.

Anti-NECEC politicians raged against “foreign governments” trying to influence the process, pointing out that Hydro-Quebec—which launched its own multi-million-dollar PR campaign—belongs to its eponymous province.

But Calpine’s ownership seems to have simply never come up. And the state’s dependence upon fossil fuel-fired plants would soon become devastatingly clear.

Just weeks after the vote, the Maine Public Utilities Commission announced residents would face a more than 80 percent hike in their electricity rates. The culprit, the agency said: the spiking price of natural gas, which currently provides roughly half of New England’s power.

“They set up this referendum to stop hydropower coming in, then a month later they jacked up the prices on natural gas that the hydro was going to displace from the grid,” raged State Sen. Trey Stewart, a fierce NECEC supporter. “The companies that won are now reaping serious benefits off the backs of Maine rate payers.”

A Republican, Stewart is an ardent advocate of expanding American natural gas production and a bitter critic of President Joe Biden’s opposition to pipeline construction. But even as he acknowledged the NECEC would not have come online until 2024, the legislator argued it could have guaranteed Mainers reliable low-cost electricity for decades to come.

In the meantime, benchmarks are fast approaching for ambitious emission reduction plans state governments in Maine and Massachusetts have passed. And experts warn Maine may have erased one of the best and easiest ways to reach their goals: replacing fossil fuel generation with hydropower.

“It makes it that much harder for New England to find a path for reaching its targets for decarbonization,” warned John Parsons, executive director at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, who co-authored a study on the subject in 2020. “This was part of the cheapest, the best economical deal for customers.”

The irony is, the plan’s opponents included a number of local environmental activists—all of them “hoodwinked” by the fossil fuel industry, according to Stewart.

Jeff Marks, senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center—an anti-climate change think-tank—was less acerbic. The Acadia Center itself was ambivalent about the project, recognizing the need for the clean power it would provide, while insisting the utility firms behind it provide further public benefits if and when it came to fruition.

Many people, Marks believes, were persuaded by slick ads depicting the project as a threat to the state’s beloved forests. This even though the new transmission capacity would have largely run along existing power lines and would have removed a small fraction of the state’s overall tree cover.

“This is a state of 90 percent trees. This is a pretty tiny footprint in the forest of Maine,” Marks said. “The earth is burning, we’re having brutal heat waves, more drought, and extreme rainfall. We looked at this project purely from the standpoint of: ‘Does it provide a solution on climate change? Does it have potential to reduce carbon?’ And we kind of erred on the side of ‘yes.’”

For now, the NECEC is scheduled to argue to the state’s top court in May that the Maine constitution does not allow for a referendum to retroactively cancel an approved project. But a lower court denied a request for an injunction against the referendum’s results in December, halting the project’s progress.

Aslund has long warned about the influence of Blavatnik and other Russia-linked elites in American affairs, influence he asserted in a 2020 paper “can hardly be considered legitimate,” even if, as he himself noted, it “is both public and legal.” He told The Daily Beast that, with Moscow slaughtering civilians in its bid to subjugate Ukraine, his concerns have only intensified.

Meanwhile, in the months since the referendum, prospects for New England and other natural gas-dependent areas of the country have only grown more dire, given that one of the earth’s major fossil fuel-producing regions seems headed for years of market-wracking conflict.

“I think those problems in Eastern Europe are going to get worse before they get better, and so prices are only going to go up,” said Stewart, the Maine lawmaker. “I’m not as worried about power coming from Canada as I would be about oil coming from Russia. That’s a much less stable market, not just in terms of base-level concerns, but in terms of price volatility.”

Sure enough, on Tuesday, President Biden announced a ban on Russian oil and natural gas imports, which could wreak new havoc on energy prices across the country.

“And I think the Canadians are better partners,” Stewart added, noting the state’s economy, and especially that of his own district, is tightly intertwined with that of the nation’s neighbor and ally to the north.

Read the full article at the Daily Beast here.

Proposed Killingly power plant dealt another blow

It’s the end of the line for the proposed Killingly natural gas plant as far grid operator ISO-New England is concerned, at least for the immediate future.

Two rulings in the last two weeks, one by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the other by the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington D.C., paved the way for the ISO to complete its recent annual auction that determines future power sources for use by the New England grid.

The auction results will not include the Killingly facility, as they have for the last several auctions.

It’s unclear whether Killingly’s owners, NTE, have additional recourse to force the ISO to include the plant — and, if they do, whether they would use it. The company did not respond to requests for information.

Also unclear is whether after six years of planning, NTE might abandon the project. Without a guaranteed market for its power, investors could be disinclined to back the plant, though NTE has said in the past that the plant’s financing is in place.

Killingly had become a cause celebre for environmental advocates who argued the region needed more renewable not fossil fuel energy. The ISO has argued natural gas generation improves the grid’s reliability. But in winter, when gas is needed for heat and the grid operator has to turn to dirtier oil and coal generation, environmental advocates have argued the use of natural gas makes the grid less reliable. That is being underscored right now as fossil fuel prices soar due to the war being waged by Russia in Ukraine.

Advocates, along with Gov. Ned Lamont and Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Commissioner Katie Dykes, have also argued that more non-renewable energy on the grid is counterproductive in terms of slowing climate change and that it could cause the state to miss any number of greenhouse gas emissions goals, including the governor’s executive order for a carbon-free grid by 2040. The legislature failed to make that order into a law last session, but it’s been refiled for this session.

The most recent turn of events began on Nov. 4 when the ISO asked permission from FERC to remove Killingly from the February auction because NTE had missed required deadlines that would ensure its development.

On Jan. 3, 2022, FERC approved the ISO’s request, saying: “Based on a review of the record, including the confidential information provided by ISO-NE and NTE, we find that the relevant condition for termination … has been met.”

NTE disagreed, saying at the time: “We are very disappointed and do not agree with FERC’s decision. The Killingly Energy Center is important for grid reliability, and we will continue to work to be the bridge for the region’s carbon-free future.”

NTE asked for a re-hearing by FERC and took the matter to court, which resulted in a ruling just days before the annual auction on Feb. 7, 2022, that temporarily stayed FERC’s decision removing the plant from consideration.

Switch to electric buildings or miss climate goals, N.J. advocates say

New Jersey is falling behind neighboring states in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from homes and buildings — a trend that threatens the state’s goal of slashing global-warming pollution, according to a report by a nonprofit advocacy group.

The analysis by the Acadia Center, commissioned by the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, calls on the state to step up efforts to transition buildings to electric power and to end heating homes with natural gas and other fossil fuels. Power to heat and cool buildings represents the second-largest source of greenhouse-gas emission in the state, behind vehicle emissions — accounting for about a quarter of the pollution responsible for climate change.

The report recommends a range of new policies and incentives to accelerate the replacement of gas-fired and oil-fueled furnaces with electric appliances. That includes using cold-climate heat pumps that can not only heat homes in negative temperatures, but also provide highly efficient air conditioning.

In a state where more than 75% of the public relies on natural gas to heat homes, the idea of converting homes to heat pumps is probably the most controversial aspect of the plan by Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration to transition to 100% clean energy by 2050.

The Senate approved a bill to prohibit state agencies from mandating electric heating systems earlier this year. The bill died when it failed to win approval in the Assembly at the end of the last legislative session in early January. Clean-energy advocates say there are no plans to mandate a conversion to electrified buildings.

Costs at issue

For the most part, criticism focuses on the cost of conversion to heat pumps, which work by gathering heat from one location and transferring it to another, rather than generating heat.

According to data based on conversions in other states in the Northeast, typical costs range from $4,000 to $7,000. Opponents, however, claim the actual costs are much higher, ranging as much as $20,000.

Proponents argued Tuesday that by electrifying buildings, consumers will see lower annual operating costs for a typical home in New Jersey equipped with an average level of weatherization.

The average home would save about $50 annually, even assuming very low gas prices, such as those from the winter of 2020-2021. By combining electric appliances with home weatherization measures, many homeowners in the state can reduce their energy bills by more than 50%, the report said.

“When combined with weatherization, New Jerseyans will save money and improve local health by electrifying their homes,’’ said Amy Boyd, director of policy at the Acadia Center. “New Jersey can follow the framework set by fellow Northeast states to successfully, quickly and affordably switch to an electric future.’’

For instance, Massachusetts offers incentives ranging from $4,000 to $10,000 to convert to cold-climate heat pumps, Boyd said. It also is important to target poorly insulated homes for such conversions, she said, noting they account for half of all greenhouse-gas emissions in the state.

Incentives needed

Sen. Andrew Zwicker (D-Mercer) said if the state offers incentives that reduce upfront costs, consumers will be more willing to switch to an electric system, which otherwise costs more than a conventional gas or oil furnace.

The state’s Energy Master Plan recommends converting 22% of buildings to electric heat pumps by 2030, a target that proponents say is not aggressive enough to achieve the state’s clean-energy goal.

The state master plan also says New Jersey should convert 90% of residential and commercial buildings from natural gas to electric appliances by 2050.

“New Jersey needs to start developing the policies and incentives to advance building electrification in a way that benefits consumers, supports low- and moderate-income communities, and reduces harmful indoor emissions,’’ said Tom Gilbert, campaign director of ReThink New Jersey and New Jersey Conservation Foundation.

New Jersey ranks seventh among states in the nation with most premature deaths, with over 250 from outdoor air pollution directly related to combustion in buildings from gas, oil and propane, according to research from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

Read the full article at WHYY here.