Connecticut targets building emissions, energy equity as it moves to update energy strategy
In September 2021, the state reported that it was no longer on track to meet its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. Emissions rose 2.7% from 2017 to 2018, the report found based on the latest state data available, off the pace needed to reduce economywide GHG emissions 80% below 2001 levels by 2050.
Although the state’s electricity sector had made strides, the state found that the transportation and building sectors continued to be major sources of climate pollution.
However, the state also abandoned the proposed regional Transportation and Climate Initiative, which was meant to align several states around a transportation emission reduction program. Connecticut’s legislature did not approve the initiative over concerns about high gas prices.
The GHG report and the TCI failures should lend some urgency to the new CES and building code process, said Amy McLean, senior policy advocate and Connecticut director for the Acadia Center.
“We are not on track and you can’t get away from it. We have the data,” McLean said. “The only way we are going to meet our goals is to be bolder in our policies and our legislation and by addressing the transportation and building sectors.”
Lamont’s executive order acknowledges that the state will not meet its 2030 goals unless the legislature “authorizes expanded investment and decarbonization programs,” although it adds that the governor will use executive authority “where appropriate and to the extent possible to address climate mitigation and resilience.”
The order instructs DEEP to identify strategies for more affordable heating and cooling for buildings that also reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as a rewrite of the state’s building codes that consider GHG reductions. Under the order, state facilities will also adopt GHG reduction strategies, including a goal of obtaining 100% zero carbon electricity by 2030 and retrofitting all fossil fuel-based heating and cooling systems by 2023.
The order also calls for a statewide electric bus fleet by 2035, with the cessation of diesel bus purchases by the end of 2023.
The CES will help put some of those goals into action. Under the scoping process announced last week, DEEP will take public comment through March 3 on topics including decarbonization of buildings, decarbonization of industrial thermal processes, updates to the state’s electric vehicle plan and updates to the state’s Integrated Resources Plan. The CES scoping process will also include a focus on equity, in line with Lamont’s goal.
DEEP Commissioner Katie Dykes said in a statement that the process “affords us an opportunity to engage with the public on new and existing energy policies needed to provide cleaner, more affordable, and reliable energy options for residents and businesses in the state.”
McLean said she was encouraged by the “depth” of issues laid out in the proceedings, which reflect comments the group has provided to the state. McLean said the state had plenty of opportunity to enact energy efficiency measures, increase public transportation and electrify government vehicles, which would kickstart the state’s goals.
“This is stuff that’s not hard to do, yet there’s not a will to do it,” McLean said. “We have to have the political will on top of good policy in order to make progress.”
Read the full article at Utility Dive here.
First, end ratepayer subsidies for natural gas expansion. Then study the future of gas in Connecticut
You may be surprised to learn that Connecticut natural gas ratepayers are subsidizing the expansion of the natural gas system. Yes, in 2021 as we are trying to stop burning fossil fuels that contribute to climate change, ratepayers’ funds are being used to increase the number of natural gas customers.
The System Expansion Program (SEP) began in 2013 when the Malloy administration and legislature directed the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) to develop a ten-year plan to encourage households that used heating oil to convert to natural gas. At the time, it was believed that burning gas instead of oil would reduce emissions (though it turns out that between combustion emissions and methane leaks, gas is not a good climate solution). The conversion program required ratepayer investments in gas pipelines and infrastructure that will lock in the use of natural gas for decades. Meanwhile, the supposed cost benefits to customers have disappeared as gas prices have increased.
In 2020, PURA recognized that the program was not working as intended and asked its office of Education, Outreach, and Enforcement (EOE) to review the program. In a victory for common sense and a recognition of the facts, EOE’s review concluded that “the program should ‘downsize’ immediately and the System Expansion Program should end at the 10-year mark.”
Among other findings, EOE recognized that:
- The climate justification for the program has diminished: State policy is relying far less now than in 2013 on natural gas as a tool to meet the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act emissions goals, and EOE expects the deemphasis on natural gas to continue.
- The program is unfair to ratepayers: Diverting millions of ratepayer dollars into the program instead of lowering customer bills is “a significant change in the treatment of customers that must be addressed.”
- The evaluation process has been flawed: The criteria for assessing the program were, “far too liberal to provide any meaningful assessment of the program.”
- The program does not meet current needs and priorities: The program is designed in a way that, “does not adequately account for market trends, and cannot respond rapidly to negative trends,” such as changes in the difference between gas and oil prices and increased concern with emissions.
Now that EOE has issued its report on the System Expansion Program, it is up to PURA to enact the recommendations.
There is another problem with the gas expansion program, namely the way it has been marketed to potential new gas customers. In August 2021, Connecticut’s Attorney General and Office of Consumer Counsel filed a petition to PURA calling for an investigation into Eversource’s gas expansion marketing tactics. According to the Hartford Courant, a South Windsor resident received plainly deceptive materials from Eversource designed to pressure people into signing up for the gas expansion program. “These mailers and high-pressure marketing tactics are nothing short of alarming,” Attorney General William Tong said. PURA agreed to investigate and on Dec. 17, 2021 issued a Notice of Violation against Eversource, along with a $1,797,000 civil penalty.
Connecticut is not the only state to be increasingly wary of investing more in natural gas infrastructure. As a recent RMI study, Overextended: It’s Time to Rethink Subsidized Gas Line Extensions, notes: “A new natural gas customer is added to the system every minute in the United States, and existing gas customers are covering their construction costs through subsidies known as line extension allowances. Each year, these extensions of gas service enable utilities to pass hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to existing customers while expanding the fossil fuel system for decades to come … Utility regulators in every state should reform line extension allowances to eliminate subsidies for gas, align with state climate policies, and reduce the financial burden on existing gas customers.”
Among the states beginning to act is Massachusetts, where the advisory council that oversees Mass Save, the state’s energy efficiency program, is seriously questioning the continuation of incentives for the conversion of home heating systems from oil to gas. Critics of Mass Save point out that heating with natural gas will still produce large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions and lock in the emissions for decades. And who designed the Mass Save program? Gas utilities, among others.
Meanwhile the State of Maryland’s People’s Counsel recently wrote that Maryland gas utilities are continuing to expand their distribution infrastructure despite the growing danger of climate change. Why? Because it benefits shareholders. But the problem goes deeper than that. As Maryland and other states transition away from fossil fuels, ratepayers will still be paying for the investments gas companies are making right now. The question is, who will bear the unrecovered costs of obsolete infrastructure, ratepayers or shareholders? The question has not been answered in Maryland, but given the efforts of gas utilities to expand, it is reasonable to assume that they are counting on ratepayers.
In Connecticut, we need to ask the following question: who will pay for gas infrastructure that becomes obsolete as the state transitions away from burning fossil fuels?
One of the best ways to address the question would be to open a Future of Gas docket at PURA, similar to what the Department of Public Utilities did in Massachusetts. Initiated by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, Docket 20-80 is considering what an orderly decrease in the use of natural gas for heating would look like, what alternatives exist for heating buildings, how much ratepayer money should utilities spend on repairing and replacing leaking pipelines that may be phased out, and how should remaining gas ratepayers be protected from the costs of maintaining a distribution system that has fewer and fewer customers.
Gov. Ned Lamont’s recent Executive Order No. 21-3 suggests that Connecticut needs to look squarely at the future of natural gas. “GHG emissions from buildings have increased instead of being on track to achieve the roughly one-third reduction in such emissions needed to achieve the GWSA 2030 target, [and] a new Comprehensive Energy Strategy is needed that identifies the best clean, affordable and resilient heating and cooling options for buildings, and reconsiders the natural gas expansion program recommended in the 2013 Comprehensive Energy Strategy.”
Governor, push to completely end the current natural gas expansion program that is expensive, unfair to ratepayers, and inconsistent with the state’s greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Then join with Attorney General Tong to request that PURA open a docket that explores the future of gas. Ratepayers, voters, and future generations will thank you.
Peter Millman is a member of Beyond Gas CT, a coalition that includes the Conservation Law Foundation, Sierra Club CT, Acadia Center, The Nature Conservancy, Save the Sound, CT Citizen Action Group, and People’s Action for Clean Energy.
Read the full article at CT Mirror here.
Going Green: 9 Experts Tips For an Eco-Friendly Holiday Season and New Year
While the holidays have been coined the best time of the year, it’s also the most wasteful. In fact, between Thanksgiving and the New Year, Americans create 25% more waste than any other time of the year. As you wrap up the holiday season and prepare for the year ahead, we thought who better to ask for advice on how to be more eco-friendly during the holiday season and beyond than those that know sustainability and the environment best. From Eugene, OR to Toronto, ON, experts across North America shared simple yet impactful ways that you can be more green. Whether it’s finally replacing your windows to reduce heat loss or swapping out household cleaning products for environmentally-friendly options, there are so many ways you can become more eco-conscious at home during the holiday season and into the New Year.
1. Decorate your home sustainably
Instead of putting up a real tree that will die, consider making a “Green Tree” – i.e., sustainable tree – this year. Get creative and make an upcycled tree from repurposed materials. – Cinder Garden Designs
2. Ditch traditional cards for an eco-conscious option
There is no time like the holidays to start being more eco-conscious. Instead of mailing those holiday greeting cards, email them. This will reduce your carbon footprint and produce less physical waste. – Environmental Volunteers
3. Put community solar in the stocking instead of coal this year
Groups like Groundswell can give you a cost-effective share in community solar while providing benefits to your community. For lower-income households, Grid Alternatives has great options to take advantage of the sun. And for others who fall outside of the five states that Groundswell works in, there are many local groups as well as national ones, like national group Arcadia, that can connect you and your loved ones to clean energy gifts perfect for the stocking this year. – Acadia Center
4. Reduce your heat and cooling losses for an eco-conscious New Year
Green habits to adopt for the new year should include reducing your heat or cooling losses. Start small by putting in well-fitted insulating shades or drapes, and ensuring the drafts of outside air are blocked with proper-fitting door gaskets. Next level planning would include making sure all your windows are double-paned with high r-value windows for your climate. And if you’re building an addition to your home, or a new home or out-building, leave behind traditional wood stick framing and look at sustainable ICCF (insulating composite concrete forms) wall block construction for high energy reductions at a competitive price. – Faswall
5. Upcycle old holiday cards into handmade gift tags
Cut out the festive designs on past years’ holiday cards, put your festive creativity to work, and attach them to your gifts! Be sure to avoid or craft over any spots where the cards had writing on them. – bare market
6. Shop local and remember to buy quality over quantity
Besides supporting your community and finding unique gifts and fresh, seasonal, organic produce, you’re avoiding adding to the mass supply chain and transportation emissions when you shop locally. Everything we buy ends up somewhere, whether that’s biodegrading in the ground or sitting in a landfill for literal decades. Where you can, try to opt for vintage or antique gifts. Otherwise, make an effort to buy useful things that will last a long time but can easily be repurposed or biodegrade at the end of their life cycles. – Aurora Sustainability
7. Gift our planet this holiday season by using natural odor eliminators
You can clean your air and save by using eco-friendly natural, unscented, reusable, and chemical-free deodorizers. In addition, you will be helping fight climate change by reducing your carbon footprint. – NoOdor.com
8. Think practically to help reduce post-holiday waste
Reduce post-holiday waste by giving gifts that are consumable or that the recipient can use in their everyday life. We’ve all gotten cheap “throwaway” gifts that people give when they feel compelled to give something, and oftentimes those gifts that are cheap, break easily or can’t be used, so they end up in the trash. Instead, give gifts like coffee or tea (things that can be used up) or practical items that can be used every day. Your gift recipients will think of you every time they use their gift, and you won’t contribute more to landfill waste. – Creative Green Living
9. Ditch the plastic and think reusable this year
Marley’s Monsters UNpaper® towels and Washable Sponges are not only great for gifting but also great for cleaning up during and after holiday parties. Give the gift of sustainability with reusables that can be used over and over again, save money, and the environment. – Marley’s Monsters
Originally published on Redfin.
How New England bungled its plan to transition to renewable energy
Earlier this year, Massachusetts passed a landmark law as part of a push towards decarbonization that requires the state to cut emissions in half by 2030.
But the state’s plan to meet this ambitious goal hit a snag this fall, when residents in Maine voted down a regional clean energy project, arguing it would irreversibly damage their own natural resources in order to deliver hydropower somewhere else.
“This project was poorly designed from the beginning,” said Pete Didisheim of the Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM). “The developer failed almost every step of the way to involve the public and to provide Maine with meaningful benefits.”
Proposed in 2017, the New England Clean Energy Connect project intended to transport 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower through western Maine. But in a 60% to 40% referendum split this November, Maine residents voted to reject the transmission line.
Environmentalist groups in Maine – as well as Indigenous groups in Canada – argued the plan would put New England on a path to decarbonization that omits voices of the most affected communities.
Initially, the project proposed running the utility through New Hampshire. When that failed, an above-ground route through Maine was chosen as an alternative to Vermont’s buried power lines.
“It is undeniably one of the shortest routes,” said Greg Cunningham of the Conservation Law Foundation, noting that the lower cost of the route through Maine appealed to developers. “If a project developer is pursuing a project on the cheap, it ought to be a red flag.”
Under this plan, environmental groups like Sierra Club, NRCM and Conservation Law Foundation expressed concern about the power lines cutting through Maine’s North Woods.
“The fact that the biggest utility in the state of Maine proposes to stretch transmission lines over an iconic natural resource like the Kennebec gorge, and in doing so, permanently damage both the visual and ecological attributes of the gorge is just foolish and avoidable,” Cunningham said. While running the transmission line over the Kennebec gorge was initially considered and later scrapped, the project’s updated approach is to bury a portion of transmission lines by drilling under the river instead.
Estimated at about $1bn, the project is funded by the Canadian utility company Hydro-Quebec and Central Maine Power, a subsidiary of energy company Avangrid, which services 3.3 million customers across New England and New York. A coalition of First Nation tribes in Quebec filed a lawsuit to stop construction of the hydropower line from the Quebec side.
“The truth is that most of the power generated by [Hydro-Quebec] is generated and transmitted on our ancestral land without consent or compensation,” wrote Lucien Wabanonik, a spokesperson for the coalition and a member of the Anishnabeg tribe.
A spokesperson from Clean Energy Matters, a political action committee funded by Avangrid, disputed the claim that the public input was not sought out by developers. “There was a tremendous amount of public input in the regulatory approval process,” said Chris Glynn.
Although the construction is suspended, it’s not necessarily the end for the transmission line. Roughly 40% of the work has been completed already, with 124 miles (200km) of right-of-way trees and vegetation cut and transmission structures erected along the project route. Avangrid has maintained that the NECEC will bring cleaner air and lower energy prices to New England. Earlier this month, a district judge denied Avangrid and its subsidiary CMP’s motion to delay the referendum decision. An appeal to the Maine supreme court is expected in the coming months.
From the time the project was first introduced, both sides campaigned heavily for voter support. The initiative was endorsed by Maine and Massachusetts’ governors and their predecessors, and had appeal across party lines. The project is also seemingly welcomed by the federal government, with the energy secretary, Jennifer Granholm, urging voters to support the transmission line.
Certain environmental groups were less keen on downright opposing the project, seeing it as a crucial first step away from fossil fuels. “New England has a natural gas problem,” Jeff Marks, of the local non-profit Acadia Center, said. “Most of our electricity is still generated by fossil fuels, so getting clean energy from a variety of sources is certainly going to be a priority.”
Both supporters and opponents of the transmission line flooded local radio with ads, spending more than $60m to sway voters, according to Maine Public Radio. Two Texas-based fossil fuel companies with operations in Maine were the largest donors to the opposition campaign. Having oil companies fighting the project has further complicated the question for the voters of Maine.
Although Cunningham, from the Conservation Law Foundation, saw several flaws in the way the hydropower initiative was rolled out, he was not surprised by the way oil and gas companies funded the opposition. “The reality borne out by the NECEC project is that big oil and gas companies are doing anything and everything they can to hinder if not kill progress,” Cunningham said. “These companies feel an existential threat to their investments and we’re going to see that at every turn.”
Read the full article at The Guardian here.
Drafty homes drive up energy bills. Maine volunteers are using a simple technique to insulate some of them
Inside an old church basement in Norway, Sharon Harrison stretches a wide, thin sheet of polymer over a rectangular wooden frame. She’s one of a few dozen volunteers inside the church — building the frames and covering them in shrink wrap and foam.
The end result: window inserts that will eventually fit snugly into the drafty windows in her house in Waterford, built back in 1798. She already added some inserts a few years ago.
“And I do not want to replace the windows. I love the old, gravy glass,” Harrison said. “So this was a good alternative to keeping our house from being drafty. It really has made a difference.”
A big difference. It’s warmer inside, and Harrison said her fuel bill has fallen by a third.
“The first year we moved in the house, without these, we were just going through so much fuel. It was ridiculous,” Harrison said. “And there’s been a couple occasions when I’ve taken one out of a window, and you cannot believe the cold difference behind that. It really stopped the drafts.”
Harrison is building these inserts through a program called WindowDressers, through which residents from communities across Northern New England come together in churches and town halls to tape and wrap the frames together. The Norway event was organized by a local group, the Center for an Ecology-Based Economy. By using volunteers, prices stay relatively cheap — around $40 per insert. And they’re free for low-income households.
But while advocates tout this low-cost solution as a way to both reduce bills and cut carbon as part of the state’s plans to move away from fossil fuels, they say tackling Maine’s old, drafty housing stock will require a lot more investment in the years ahead.
“We’ve seen that about 96% of units in Maine, were built before the state even adopted a statewide building energy code, in 2008,” said Jeff Marks, a senior policy advocate and Maine Director for the Acadia Center, a climate advocacy organization.
Marks said that while weatherizing those hundreds of thousands of older homes is a huge challenge, it can make a substantial difference — particularly for low-income residents, who spend nearly a fifth of their income on energy alone.
A 2019 report from the Maine Office of the Public Advocate shows the average home energy burden for low income households compared to all households in the state.
“And really, the electrification of homes, with energy efficient heat pumps, are really the next steps. And are the types of investments that Maine really needs to increase over the coming years,” he said.
Some view Maine as a pioneer, as some of the first weatherization programs were created here in the 1970s.
In the decades since, MaineHousing has used funding from the federal Weatherization Assistance Program to seal cracks, close drafts and insulate hundreds of homes a year for low-income residents eligible for heating assistance. More recently, Efficiency Maine has also offered weatherization rebates: up to $3,500 for any resident, and up to $9,600 for those with low-to-moderate incomes.
“That’s anywhere from a third, to maybe as much as 90% of a typical project cost,” said Efficiency Maine Executive Director Michael Stoddard. “It makes a huge difference. And I think that’s a big — that financial incentive really helps people take that action.”
Altogether, the two agencies’ efforts combined weatherized about 2,000 Maine homes this year.
But in order for the state to reach its climate goal of weatherizing 35,000 homes by 2030, that rate will need to nearly double.
State officials say two recent investments have them feeling optimistic they can get there. Earlier this year, the Mills Administration allocated $25 million in federal stimulus money to Efficiency Maine, which the agency estimates will weatherize about 3,500 homes.
And the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed last month contained $3.5 billion for home weatherization nationally — about ten times the program’s annual funding level.
“But we have to remember, these are one-time influxes of cash into the state,” said the Acadia Center’s Jeff Marks. He notes that while the increased attention and funding on weatherization are good steps from state officials, he’d like to see more sustainable funding sources over the long term, such as a fee on heating fuels.
“So the money coming in from the federal government, as well as state money, and Efficiency Maine programs, are good. They’re solid,” Marks said. “But it’s not nearly enough to do everything that we need to do to reach our energy goals.”
And some advocates said that even with funding, doubling the rate of weatherization will also require bolstering the state’s workforce in a tight labor market, which could be a challenge, even with new job training programs.
Back in the church basement in Norway, Jim Gibson of Fryeburg sticks long strips of foam on to the sides of a wooden window insert — it’s one small step that Gibson says he can take to reduce carbon emissions.
“And it doesn’t seem that our politicians are moving too fast in that realm,” Gibson said. “So as I say, I feel as though, one window at a time, I’m trying to make a difference.”
Read the full article at Maine Public here.
Groups urge bigger targets, more equity as RGGI states consider changes
As the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI, undergoes a thorough review by participating states, environmental advocates are demanding more ambitious emission reduction targets and a mandate for equitable distribution of the revenues.
This is the third time since RGGI’s kickoff in 2009 that the states have reviewed the cap-and-invest program. With climate change predictions looking more dire than ever, advocates say it’s time to seriously ramp up the program’s carbon emission reduction targets.
“In both of the previous program reviews, the states lowered the emissions cap and improved the program,” said Jordan Stutt, carbon program director at the Acadia Center. “But neither of those reviews delivered sufficient levels of improvement. We would like to see it decrease more rapidly, and ultimately get us to zero emissions.”
Under RGGI, the participating states set a regional limit on the amount of carbon pollution that power plants are allowed to emit, and sell emission “allowances” up to that limit at quarterly auctions. The cap declines over time, gradually bringing down emissions.
The proceeds from the auctions are shared by the states. So far, the program has raised more than $4.7 billion, most of which has been invested in energy efficiency and clean energy projects.
The participating states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia. Pennsylvania is in the process of formulating rules that will allow it to join.
Power plant emissions across those states are down by more than half, although there is disagreement as to how much of that reduction was driven by sharp declines in the price of natural gas and renewable energy rather than RGGI.
“So far, RGGI has had pretty low auction prices,” said Kenneth Gillingham, an economics professor specializing in environmental and energy issues at Yale University. “It’s a nudge. It has reduced emissions, but I don’t think it’s a dramatic effect.”
The 2021 cap under RGGI is 119.8 million short tons. It declines by 3.655 million tons every year through 2030 and is currently supposed to hold steady after that at approximately 86.9 million tons.
But environmental advocates say that schedule is too meager, especially given the aggressive greenhouse gas reduction and renewable energy goals set by many of the participating states.
“The RGGI states should evaluate cap levels that are, at a minimum, consistent with these state goals to maintain their position as national leaders in decarbonizing electricity generation,” said Drew Stilson, a senior policy analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund, in written comments submitted during a program review stakeholder meeting last month.
Acadia is also calling for the elimination or redesign of RGGI’s so-called “cost containment reserve.” Under that mechanism, if auction prices reach a certain level, additional carbon allowances beyond the cap are released from the reserve.
Stutt says it is “unacceptable” to allow for that additional polluting. He noted that at the last RGGI auction, held earlier this month, the allowances sold for $13 each, a record high and a stronger incentive for the market to generate electricity from clean sources. But because that sum also matched the trigger price for the cost containment reserve, an additional 3.9 million allowances were released.
“We contend that if the cost containment reserve is maintained, the price triggers must be significantly higher than they are,” Stutt said. “Carbon prices are still very low compared to other programs across the globe.”
Gillingham said the reserve is intended to act as a backstop to prevent the RGGI program from becoming too expensive for ratepayers — “if it raises rates too much, it might not last.” But he agreed that a trigger price of $13 is too low “if the goal of the policy is really to ensure that it’s reducing emissions in a substantial way.”
Advocates are also hoping the states will take a serious look at whether the program is adequately benefiting the communities that are most impacted by air pollution. RGGI has so far deferred to individual states as to how to spend their share of the auction proceeds. But advocates are seeking a requirement that states allocate a minimum of perhaps 40% of proceeds to environmental justice communities.
“It’s frustrating that we haven’t seen progress on this yet,” Stutt said. “I think it would be inexcusable for the states to forego this opportunity to build equity into the program.”
The Northeast Regional members of the Climate Justice Alliance are urging the states to collect data identifying where emissions reductions are happening, and whether the program is improving or worsening air quality in environmental justice communities.
States are “certainly paying more lip service” to equity issues this time around, said Basav Sen, a climate policy expert at the Institute for Policy Studies, which is a member of the alliance. “But the primary problem with the way they approach equity is that they view it as something to address after the emissions have occurred. And those emissions happen in an inequitable way.”
In addition to tightening the emissions cap and boosting the trigger price for the reserve, Sen said the program should also stop allowing emitters to store allowances for future use.
“It makes the cap completely meaningless,” he said. “They should just expire. It’s supposedly a way to allow polluters to reduce emissions in the most cost-efficient way possible. But honestly, we are way past the point of worrying about costs for polluters. We are too far into the climate crisis for that.” The review process will continue throughout next year, with a draft of the updated model rule expected next fall.
Read the full article at Energy News Network here.
Maine Must Fundamentally Reform Energy Planning to Gain Public Trust
On November 2, motivated by opposition to the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) transmission project, Maine voters overwhelmingly approved Question 1, the citizen’s initiative to amend state law regarding construction of electric transmission lines, including banning certain projects and requiring legislative approval for those that cross public lands. The line proposed by Central Maine Power in conjunction with Hydro-Quebec would have connected the Maine power grid with Quebec as part of a Massachusetts plan to export hydropower and displace fossil fuel generation.
The controversy over the NECEC project has crystalized critical issues that Maine must grapple with, including how to transition to a modern energy system that benefits communities, protects critical lands and habitat, and serves all consumers equitably while rapidly shifting away from fossil fuels towards reliance on cleaner, safer electric options needed to meet the state’s climate targets by 2030.
Maine is already witnessing the damaging impacts of climate change. From increased storm damage and flooding, to alarming threats to lobster habitat, Maine’s economic future and quality of life is tied to its climate future. Maine must shift from fossil fuels like heating oil and natural gas to clean energy options. Over the next decade, Maine can do this by expanding electric building heating and electric transportation choices; increasing clean energy generation, storage, and delivery of renewable energy; and modernizing its electricity grid. This transition will require a clean and equitable transmission and utility distribution system and a shared vision to build it.
To ensure good decisions that earn public support, Maine must fundamentally reform its outdated approach to energy planning and decision-making. Simply put, the current energy planning and utility business model is no longer compatible with the transformations necessary to address climate change, electrify the economy, and incorporate public input. Currently, electric utilities are charged with the responsibility to plan for energy needs and then decide which energy projects to propose and build. Once constructed, utilities and other energy companies earn revenue from these projects. This system creates fundamental conflicts between planning and investment choices. And it fails to take a comprehensive view of all the technologies, fuels, and efficiency options available to meet the energy needs of the state and communities.
To reform the system, Acadia Center is recommending that Maine enact two fundamental changes we call Reforming Energy System Planning for Equity and Climate Transformation (RESPECT). First, RESPECT removes conflicts of interests by separating the entity that conducts energy planning from the entity that builds, owns, and earns revenue from the projects. The planning entity would have a public interest charge – not a financial one. Second, the energy planning entity would have the tools to meet energy, heating, and consumer needs while specifically addressing state climate requirements and equity goals. This will allow more focused consideration of clean, effective energy solutions, including building weatherization, heat pumps, solar, and storage.
Maine has started down this road. L.D. 1682, enacted earlier this year, requires the Maine Public Utilities Commission to consider compliance with Maine’s climate statute in all decisions. If this law had been in effect when the PUC was considering the NECEC project, the carbon emission reductions promised would have been tested in a robust, measurable, and verifiable way. With “climate” elevated on equal footing with affordability, reliability, and utility profits, future PUC decisions will help save ratepayers money, improve equity and environmental justice outcomes, and support decarbonization.
In the wake of the divisive referendum, a new framework must emerge to modernize the electricity grid with greater stakeholder engagement and the holistic planning that Maine deserves. The alternative is continued delays in building the energy future we need at great detriment to Maine’s economic, environmental, and consumer future.
Dan Sosland is president of Acadia Center, a Rockport based non-profit research and advocacy organization focused on climate change and clean energy solutions that address economic, consumer and equity needs.
Opinion: Youngkin’s withdrawal from a regional climate agreement would cost Virginians
Virginia Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin’s recent announcement to undo Virginia’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative law via executive action is an opportunity: Richmond’s policymakers can now look with fresh eyes at that program’s major investments all across the commonwealth.
Youngkin’s stated reason to remove Virginia from the long-standing program (RGGI, pronounced “Reggie”) is to protect Virginia ratepayers from cost-of-living expenses. Focusing on pocketbook issues is always a laudable goal. And ratepayer cost concerns are real: Virginia has high electric rates that burden not just families but also our regional competitiveness. Our state’s rates are higher than not just every single one of our four regulated neighbors, but federal data shows Virginia rates are higher than nearly every single Southern state. As a result of these high rates, Virginians pay among the highest monthly electric bills in the nation. That cost will shoot up even further this winter when fossil fuel prices skyrocket.
But to protect Virginians from cost increases, Youngkin (R) should consider that RGGI does precisely that, by design: It both reduces the cost of living for our lower-income residents and funds mitigation of far costlier sea-level rise. Indeed, many of Youngkin’s own goals — to address sea-level rise, reduce emissions and lower the cost of living — are all advanced by the RGGI program. Its proven record of delivering value is why RGGI was hailed as a “real bipartisan, common-sense solution” by Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R).
Here are the facts: RGGI is the multistate, market-based “cap-and-invest” program to lower carbon emissions, the main driver of costly climate change and sea-level rise across Hampton Roads. RGGI lowers emissions by holding power plants accountable for paying for their smokestack pollution, which RGGI also requires must decline over time; states invest those proceeds in common-sense, cost-lowering infrastructure improvements across their economies, such as boosting energy efficiency to lower electric bills.
Virginia joined RGGI precisely because of the program’s proven record of decreasing energy costs and slashing air pollution: RGGI-state emissions are just half of what they were at the program’s start more than a decade ago. As for costs, RGGI-state electricity prices have fallen over time, and RGGI-funded efficiency investments lower monthly bills, delivering $1.2 billion in bill savings thus far, with $13 billion more expected. It’s not surprising, then, that RGGI-state economies have grown faster than the rest of the country.
Here in Virginia, large polluters have already paid more than $200 million in RGGI proceeds for two crucial investments. First, RGGI investment in Virginia’s Community Flood Preparedness Fund goes to tackle the worsening sea-level rise across Hampton Roads and flooding statewide. RGGI already funded Virginia Beach with $3 million to mitigate the much higher costs of sea-level rise. Del. Will Morefield (R-Tazewell) also proposed using RGGI investments to help Virginians hit by extreme-weather flooding in far Southwest Virginia. Second, RGGI investment goes to bill-lowering energy efficiency improvements for the hard-working Virginia families that need them most. In the Albemarle County region alone, RGGI investments will slash the energy costs for more than 350 extremely low-income families, with relief to hundreds more families to come. Leaving RGGI would defund these very real investments in Virginia and Virginians.
More important, doing so would overlook the ripe opportunities right at hand to deliver progress and lower the electric bills of Virginia ratepayers.
Youngkin can lead in Richmond with real, bipartisan solutions here. He could provide relief from Virginia’s high electric rates if he worked with both legislative chambers on common-sense energy measures. To name just two major cost-of-living reforms: Youngkin and the legislature can first boost our economy’s lagging energy efficiency performance by ensuring state-regulated monopolies fully unlock those proven but still-latent Virginia resources. That reform will lower bills and the need to pay for costlier new electricity generation. And they could work together to rid Virginia’s code of the slew of monopoly-friendly “rate adjustment” accounting gimmicks that raise ratepayer costs by artificially inflating, month after month, Virginia electric bills. Virginia law has so many of those “rate adjustment” gimmicks, in fact, that there is even one in Virginia’s RGGI law (the only RGGI state to include one), unnecessarily padding electric utility profits on the backs of Virginia families.
So if Youngkin strikes anything from law, it should be those kinds of unnecessary cost burdens on Virginia ratepayers. Because one thing is certain: If Youngkin works on real solutions to lower both the cost of living and emissions, his first year in office will set a problem-solving leadership example to the nation, by delivering bipartisan progress in a narrowly divided state, that further strengthens Virginia’s economic resilience.
Read the full article at The Washington Post here.
Maine doesn’t have enough money to meet EV goals, a new report says
A new report from Gov. Janet Mills’ administration recommended new strategies to accelerate electric vehicle use, but it foreshadowed difficult conversations by saying Maine needs more money to meet ambitious climate goals.
The new clean transportation roadmap, required under an executive order by the Democratic governor in April, says Maine has made progress since 2019 by increasing battery and plug-in hybrid vehicles by 90 percent to 5,577 vehicles and public charging stations by 65 percent to 265 locations.
But more work needs to be done and thorny political questions about how to generate more money for the initiatives must be answered before decreasing the amount of fossil-fuel emissions in Maine’s transportation sector, which produces more than half of those emissions. The state needs 219,000 light-duty EVs on the road by 2030 to meet a goal of curbing greenhouse gas emissions by 45 percent.
The roadmap comes after a national study released in February concluded that Maine needed to accelerate its plans to get more electric vehicles on the road as the state relies heavily on the emerging vehicles to meet its climate goals. That same month, President Joe Biden made electric vehicles the centerpiece of his climate plan with a goal to convert about 645,000 postal trucks and passenger vehicles to all-electric and incentivize American companies to build a network of 500,000 charging stations.
The Mills administration said the state has limited funding to reach its goals, including only $19 million to expand charging infrastructure through 2025 through the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. If the state alone funded new charging stations, it would need $7.7 million next year and $17.6 million in 2025, and it falls short on having those amounts.
Meeting overall clean energy goals also requires regional cooperation, experts said, and that has been hard to come by. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker recently pulled out of the Transportation Climate Initiative, a multi-state pact to reduce carbon emissions, citing a lack of buy-in among other states in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, according to WBUR.
The pact is currently “frozen by political inertia throughout New England,” said Jeff Marks, Maine director of the Acadia Center, which was spearheading that project, which Mills never actively joined amid concerns that any funding solution could fall hard on rural Mainers.
“The clean transportation roadmap is a good start, but it will need political, technology and financial capital to move it forward in the right direction,” Marks said.
The Mills administration’s plan could still be controversial. The report opens the door to new funding methods that could be politically unpalatable, noting the state could generate more money to fund key initiatives by increasing the gas tax or adding a vehicle-miles-traveled tax, though it does not endorse any particular one.
Tackling transportation energy issues is important to Maine, Marks said. It is among the top 10 states in money spent per capita on energy, with the highest proportion going to transportation. The volatility in gasoline and diesel fuel prices due to global, national and regional constraints brings additional economic uncertainty to Mainers, he said.
Maine spends more than $4 billion annually to import fossil fuels, Dan Burgess, director of the governor’s energy office, said.
“The clean transportation roadmap offers options for how Maine can keep more of that money at home and create long-term climate and economic benefits to the state,” Burgess said.
Read the full article at Bangor Daily News here.
Next Generation Energy Efficiency – New PUC Order Represents a Bygone Generation Addicted to Fossil Fuels and Useless Against Climate Change
A new order by New Hampshire’s utility regulator stops the state dead in its energy efficiency tracks and shackles it to its outdated previous plan. After a year of delay and opposition by some legislators and business groups, the NH Public Utilities Commission rejected a new energy efficiency plan developed as a consensus by utilities, government entities, consumer groups, and Acadia Center and its partners. Order No. 26,553 in DE 20-092 Electric and Gas Utilities: 2021-2023 Triennial Energy Efficiency Plan, released 11/12/2021.
New Hampshire has some of the oldest and leakiest housing stock in the nation and a high dependency on fossil fuels for heating. Building heating is also one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in New Hampshire. The new plan was an opportunity to save millions of additional dollars by helping residents and businesses more aggressively reduce energy costs and pollution. The proposed consumer-friendly energy efficiency would have reduced energy costs, increased energy efficiency, decreased greenhouse gas emissions, and provided economic development opportunities. Other Northeast states are making tremendous progress in their energy efficiency programs by maximizing the use of weatherization and beneficial electrification, reducing economic insecurity from the inefficient use of fossil fuels, and creating new jobs and businesses to deliver affordable energy efficiency products and services. New Hampshire can and should do so, as well. Instead, it will remain dead last in New England on energy efficiency policy and programs.
A robust, escalating energy efficiency resource standard would have sent a clear signal to the market in residential, commercial, and industrial programs and a level of certainty that encourages more investment in cost-effective energy efficiency. Instead, the NH PUC has undercut the progress the state had made in saving consumers’ energy and growing good, green jobs in the industry by denying such certainty.
Energy efficiency represents the largest block of energy workers in New Hampshire. The 10,838 Energy Efficiency jobs in New Hampshire represent 0.5 percent of all U.S. energy efficiency jobs. The median wage for all energy workers in New Hampshire is $26.13, which is 37 percent above the national median wage of $19.14. [1] All NH counties have energy efficiency workers in more than 2000 energy-efficiency-related businesses. The future of energy efficiency in NH was looking promising, with ~ 6800 new EE construction jobs needed just to retrofit NH homes by 2030. [2] The expanded efficiency programs could have created 17,500 job-years and produced $3.5 billion in increased economic output in New Hampshire.
Given the international impetus on global climate change and renewed federal action on clean energy and efficiency investments, this was no time to move backwards on robust energy efficiency programs and projects in New Hampshire. New Hampshire deserves to reap the benefits that a more robust NHSaves program can provide. Past progress shows that investments in efficiency grow the economy, create jobs, enhance public health, improve housing, and increase access to low-carbon heating.
But the Commission’s order sends a signal to the market that additional investment in cost-effective energy efficiency is unwanted. Counter to the PUC’s findings, far more must be done to improve the efficiency of NH homes and businesses and to ensure that all overburdened and underserved communities reap the full benefits of efficiency offerings. Many consumers face unequal access to benefits under existing efficiency programs, and underserved communities that face the worst impacts of climate change and poor housing quality have not been able to take full advantage of efficiency programs. Clean electric heating and whole house electrification must be priorities to support the acceleration of clean energy resources and the transition away from fossil fuels.
Acadia Center’s Next Generation Energy Efficiency initiative seeks to tackle these challenges through a new approach – one that focuses on energy savings as a core consumer and energy system resource, but is also centered around meeting climate, environmental justice, and electrification goals. It is an approach that recognizes the interrelatedness of these efforts, which can work in concert to bring Northeast communities the future of energy efficiency. We hope New Hampshire will eventually rejoin other New England states in moving forward to all cost-effective energy efficiency to the benefit of all citizens.
[1] U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Energy & Employment Jobs Report, 2021, Energy Employment by State 2021.
[2] E4TheFuture, Energy Efficiency Jobs in America, October 2021.
Follow us