Gov. Mills nominates attorney from Yarmouth as next public advocate

Want to Avoid Painful Price Spikes? End the Dependency on Fossil Fuels

Many New England electric and gas utilities will be charging customers more this winter because of sharply rising fossil fuel prices. These price spikes come when families and businesses are already facing increased costs due to historic inflation. Both inflation and rising oil and gas prices stem in large part from the impact of the global pandemic.[1] But volatile fossil fuel prices are nothing new, and the region must use the tools at hand to protect consumers from these impacts, including decoupling the economy from fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. The answer is not to double down on more gas, oil, and pipelines — which will always be volatile – but to electrify buildings and transportation and to bring more solar, wind, flexible load like electric vehicles, and storage into the region’s energy mix.

Why Are Prices Spiking?

The pandemic, extreme weather, and international instability are driving price spikes in New England and around the globe. Spikes in natural gas prices not only mean higher heating costs for those who heat with gas, but also rising electric rates because New England is over-reliant on natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation, in addition to heating. It is this reliance that the region must eliminate to decouple its utility bills from the risks and price volatility of fossil fuels.

New England is not the only region paying more. The entire country faces rising natural gas prices in part due to increased exports abroad. Because prices for gas are even higher in Europe and Asia, U.S. producers have an incentive to export large quantities of gas, further driving up domestic prices.[2] In addition, earlier in the year, U.S. natural gas production dropped by its largest monthly decline due to a record-breaking cold snap in the lower 48 states.[3] That freeze event paralyzed many states, resulting in substantial loss of life as well as economic damage. It simultaneously reduced gas production in the affected states.[4] By summer, just a few months later, parts of the U.S. were experiencing life-threatening summer heat waves that caused higher than normal air conditioning demand.[5] Already-diminished gas supplies were consumed at higher rates than normal to fuel electricity for cooling. European gas prices have also been surging because of supply issues, including threats from non-democratic Belarus to cut off gas supplies to the rest of Europe.[6] All of this has contributed to volatile pricing and constrained supply for natural gas in the U.S. and around the globe.

What Impacts Does New England Face from Price Spikes?

Here are some of the impacts New England faces right now:

• Electricity rates are rising with little notice in Maine. Starting January 1 Central Maine Power will increase its standard offer rates by 83% and Versant Power will raise its standard offer rates 88%.[7]
• Liberty Utilities plans to raise rates for natural gas customers in New Hampshire, including customers who already locked in fixed prices for the winter.[8] Liberty says it didn’t predict this level of price volatility when it originally set its fixed prices.
• Eversource has already raised rates for some heating customers in New England by about 14% and is urging customers to take advantage of weatherization and energy efficiency programs to control rising costs.[9]
• The EIA estimates that the cost of heating oil will increase by 33% this winter. Prices are already on the rise in New England.[10]
• The fuel oil often used as backup for certain power plants in case of polar vortex-like weather events is reportedly not well-supplied.[11] Although meteorologists aren’t anticipating a severe winter for the region, it’s never clear when a polar vortex might develop.[12]

In the Near Term, Is There Any Relief in Sight?

What help is there this winter to keep costs down? Here are some rays of hope:

• Weatherization and Energy Efficiency Reduce Costs. Weatherization and energy efficiency will help control costs even when prices spike. Fortunately, the region is already reaping the cost- and energy-savings of past energy efficiency investments, keeping costs and energy demand lower than they otherwise would be.[13] There are efficiency programs right now that will help more families and businesses weatherize and conserve energy to cut costs.[14] Even in New Hampshire, where state energy regulators recently made the poorly timed decision to cut funding for cost-saving weatherization investments and customer support programs, there are options to control costs.[15]
• Federal and State Relief Programs Target Middle- and Low-Income Residents. The federal government has announced a new program that will use part of the $1.9 trillion COVID relief budget to help with utility bills, directing additional funds to utility financial assistance for both low and middle-income families, as well as emergency rental assistance.[16] In addition, most New England states have state-specific relief programs such as the UniteCT program in Connecticut to help residents stay warm and safe.[17]
• Mild Weather Could Lower Costs and Relieve Pressure on Supplies. Warmer than average weather in New England or other parts of the world could reduce stress on supply, and new oil deliveries could replenish backup fuel sources. Although prices are still up over 2020, they fell in November as compared to October in response to relatively mild weather.[18] Meteorologists are now predicting that temperatures will rise 10 to 20 degrees above average for an extended time across most of the U.S. this winter, including New England.[19] If this proves true, it could provide substantial relief.

What Is the Long-Term Solution?

Fossil fuel price volatility is not new in New England and won’t be solved by more gas pipelines. Fossil fuel supply and price volatility is an old phenomenon that has raised anxiety and stoked fear mongering about New England’s winter electricity prices and reliability for decades. Sometimes, politicians and companies that stand to benefit from the expanded use of natural gas argue it means we should install more gas pipelines. But pipelines would place a massive financial burden on New England consumers and could never eliminate the volatility that comes with resource-constrained fossil fuels imported into the region. In addition, more fossil fuels would cause more extreme weather events, driving up the costs of climate change further for New England’s communities. Common sense says no to any more costly fossil fuel infrastructure. On the contrary, the long-term solution is to eliminate reliance on fossil fuels.

Acadia Center is working with decision makers and communities across the region to advance solutions to fuel price volatility and the other energy challenges that affect New England. These solutions include weatherization, energy efficiency, and rapid decarbonization of the region’s energy mix.

[1] See U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”), Short-Term Energy Outlook, Winter Fuels Outlook, October 2021, available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/WinterFuels.php.

[2] See id. (“Despite the high U.S. natural gas prices, futures prices for Henry Hub have traded at steep discounts to prices in Asia and Europe… This price differential has led to record volumes of U.S. LNG exports, especially to destinations in Asia and Europe. In addition, high prices in Europe and Asia have contributed to upward price pressure for U.S. natural gas, as those markets import more U.S. LNG cargoes.”).

[3] EIA, Today in Energy, February 2021 weather triggers largest monthly decline in U.S. natural gas production (May 10, 2021), available at https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47896.

[4] L. Brun Hilbert and J.F. Hallai, Natural Gas Production in Extreme Weather, Pipeline & Gas Journal, June 2021, Vol. 248, No. 6, available at https://pgjonline.com/magazine/2021/june-2021-vol-248-no-6/guest-commentary/natural-gas-production-in-extreme-weather.

[5] Suzy Khimm and Joshua Eaton, NBC News, As deadly heat waves spread, access to air conditioning becomes a lifesaving question (Aug, 20, 2021), available at https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deadly-heat-waves-spread-access-air-conditioning-becomes-lifesaving-question-n1277213.

[6] BBC, Belarus threatens to cut off gas to EU in border row (Nov. 11, 2021) (Alexander Lukashenko: “If they impose additional sanctions on us… what if we halt natural gas supplies?”), available at https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59246899.

[7] https://www.necn.com/news/local/maine-electric-bills-set-for-big-jump-amid-worldwide-crunch-in-supply-and-demand/2619580/

[8] https://www.wmur.com/article/liberty-utilities-plans-to-increase-price-for-natural-gas-fixed-rate/38295359

[9] https://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-winter-rising-energy-prices-20211103-sh7qkz2hivcchne4e47dssnpny-story.html

[10] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50116&src=email

[11] S&P Global Platts, ISO-NE Updates Power Generators Ahead of Winter Amid Supply Chain Constraints (October 1, 2021).

[12] https://www.nbcboston.com/weather/stories-weather/noaa-winter-snow-cold-forecast-for-massachusetts-new-england/2529727/

[13] https://acadiacenter.org/next-generation-energy-efficiency/

[14] E.g., https://www.masssave.com/saving/residential-rebates/home-insulation

[15] https://newhampshirebulletin.com/2021/11/25/the-high-cost-of-home-heating-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/?fbclid=IwAR3og4gqemK_GlwJLSXcp08VPFMj9Co2E5O06BlbIHce5X2Nh-tWVUYrNFU

[16] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/heating-costs-biden-administration/index.html

[17] https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2021/11-2021/Governor-Lamont-Advises-Residents-of-Efforts-To-Mitigate-Impact-of-Global-Increase-in-Energy-Costs

[18] EIA, Short-Term Energy Outlook (Dec. 7, 2021), available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/.

[19] https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/12/07/warm-winter-weather-united-states/?utm_campaign=wp_main&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR2wb7RzXLEHNeOGOovtokV7c1wJx4MV_4kqqKUaNENyBKDCKq6OEbRFz7o

I-Team: Homeowners Experience Long Delays Getting Promised Mass Save Rebates For Heat Pumps

BOSTON (CBS) — John Semas is thrilled with his new energy-efficient heat pumps he installed in his Norfolk home back in 2020. “I love it. It’s a great system,” he said.

Semas says the new system saves him hundreds of dollars a month on his heating and cooling costs.

Carbon prices, long in the dumps, surge in U.S. and Europe

Emission allowances in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap-and-trade program covering power plants in the Northeast, closed at a record-high $13 per ton at auction last week. In California, current allowances at an auction last month reached $28.60 per ton, up from $17 a ton at the end of 2019. European emissions allowances, which traded for less than $10 a ton as recently as 2017, are now flirting with $90 per ton.

The rally reflects local market conditions and program designs, but there are common threads. All three programs instituted reforms in recent years aimed at tackling persistently low prices. Investor participation in each market has also risen, helping drive demand for new credits.

Most importantly: The rally reflects markets’ growing realization that climate policy is here to stay, said Michael Mehling, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Carbon credits bought today are likely cheaper than those bought in coming years, as governments look to slash emissions and move to limit the supply of future allowances.

“It’s funny when prices are so low people would say the E.U. has a binding [emissions] target, but the market discounted it,” Mehling said. “After a decade or more of complaining about low prices, the debate is shifting to about high prices.”

Europe and the U.S. are in dramatically different places when it comes to their respective carbon markets. Limited gas supplies in Europe have driven up electricity prices and resulted in increased coal output. That, in turn, has fed demand for carbon allowances.

The sharp runup in European prices may have unintended consequences for emissions, Mehling said.

In Spain, the government intervened to cap energy prices and provide subsidies to low-income consumers. Industrial facilities are spending a growing portion of their budgets on carbon allowances, instead of investing in new equipment that might otherwise reduce emissions. More broadly, the rally has prompted debate over whether governments should intervene to stem an increase in carbon prices.

All those moves could have the effect of blunting the effectiveness of a high carbon price, which is intended to drive emission reductions.

“If we’re serious about the commitments we’ve adopted at the state and federal level, we have to be willing to stomach high prices if that is one of our policy tools,” Mehling said.

Carbon markets in America are much more limited, in both price and scope. RGGI covers power plants in 11 Northeastern states. $13 per ton is more than double the price of RGGI allowances in early 2020 but is unlikely to substantially alter power plant dispatch or make a discernible difference in electricity prices, said Paul Hibbard, a former Massachusetts utility regulator who tracks the industry at the Analysis Group.

California’s program, the Western Climate Initiative, also includes other sectors of the economy like transportation and industry. WCI’s wider reach and higher prices have the potential to drive more reductions, but also more opposition from consumers concerned about higher prices.

One contributing factor to the rally in allowance prices in both American markets is looming program reviews, analysts said. Regulators on both the East and West coasts will need to reduce the emission caps in WCI and RGGI if states are to meet their climate goals, analysts said.

In RGGI’s case, the level of state ambition has been dialed up significantly since the program’s last program review was completed in 2017. Massachusetts; New York; Rhode Island; and Virginia, RGGI’s newest member, have enacted laws requiring their states to achieve net-zero emissions by midcentury.

“So many of the states have ambitious and mandatory climate targets, and there is a very clear gulf between the ambition of those targets and the ambition of the RGGI program, as represented by the cap,” said Jordan Stutt, carbon program director at the Acadia Center, an environmental group.

Debate over lowering the cap will come as Pennsylvania contemplates joining RGGI. Gov. Tom Wolf (D) is pushing to join the program over the objections of the Republican-led Legislature. Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a candidate running to replace Wolf in 2022, has also raised doubts about RGGI.

The election of Glenn Youngkin (R) as Virginia’s governor also adds a new element to the debate over the program’s emission cap. Youngkin, speaking yesterday to the Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce, pledged to withdraw Virginia from the program via executive order.

“RGGI describes itself as a regional market for carbon, but it is really a carbon tax that is fully passed on to ratepayers. It’s a bad deal for Virginians. It’s a bad deal for Virginia businesses,” the governor-elect said, according to the Virginia Mercury. “I promised to lower the cost of living in Virginia, and this is just the beginning.”

Youngkin may face a challenge withdrawing from RGGI without the approval of the Democratically controlled Senate. But the coming fight illustrates the challenge facing carbon bulls.

Read the full article at Climatewire here.

TCI Is Not Blue-Skying — Compromise And Act

The local survey that was conducted ahead of settling on Newtown’s official branding tagline “Unique By Nature” heard loud and clear that one of the things respondents value most is the environment. That articulation was so pronounced, the lead consultant crunching survey data said Newtowners’ love of nature actually represents the community’s “brand story.”

So it must have been concerning to many about a week and a half ago when Governor Ned Lamont figuratively flipped the off switch on Connecticut’s participation in the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) — although he waffled a day later, agreeing to support participation after throwing the decision-making process back to the General Assembly to sort out.

The TCI is a multi-state agreement that would cap transportation pollution, charge wholesale polluters for emissions, and direct the funds to improve transportation and air quality for Connecticut residents. We stand with supporters who believe that TCI is our state’s best opportunity to address climate mitigation and environmental justice challenges with a regional approach.

So now it is on Connecticut lawmakers, positioning them to either take the easy way out and turn their backs, quite literally, on the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we hope to sustain for generations to come. Or, stand with colleagues in other states still supporting the TCI in a way that is meaningful and substantive, even if some compromise is required to get the program endorsement under the governor’s pen for his promised signature.

Just avoid accomplishing that on the backs of state taxpayers and residents who can least afford to underwrite the Connecticut’s involvement.

Following the governor’s announcement, the CT League of Conservation Voters was joined by The Live Green Network, The Nature Conservancy, Radical Advocates for Cross-Cultural Education, Clean Water Action, Transport Hartford/Center for Latino Progress, Operation Fuel, The Acadia Center, Mitchell Environmental Health Associates, Environment Connecticut, Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Save the Sound, and ATU Local 1336 — all calling to get Connecticut’s role in TCI solidified.

The aforementioned consortium says Lamont’s decision to withdraw support for the TCI turns a blind eye to the urgency of the climate crisis we all face.

The decision to pause Connecticut’s implementation of TCI also had a domino effect on the region, underscoring the important role our state plays in addressing the climate crisis, the statement relates. It also points out that 24 hours after Lamont abandoned TCI, Massachusetts and Rhode Island backed away from the program as well.

Since we share the belief that inaction is a disservice to all the communities and residents that would have benefited from the pollution reductions and clean transportation investments under the program, perhaps the greatest challenge to state lawmakers now, if it can even be achieved, would be to find a way to keep Connecticut as a recognized environmental leader by continuing its participation in TCI, while crafting a way to equitably distribute the related expense proportionately across all socioeconomic demographics.

We believe Newtown residents care enough about the environment to support making TCI participation a priority in the 2022 General Assembly session — and getting it done before the blue sky over all our heads is permanently compromised by greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the full article in the Newtown Bee here.

Rhode Island Left Without a Plan After CT, MA Abandon Transportation and Climate Initiative

PROVIDENCE, RI – The McKee Administration has announced that recent decisions by Connecticut Governor Lamont and Massachusetts Governor Baker will delay Rhode Island’s pursuit of the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) program. The program, which would limit vehicle pollution over time and direct investments in clean transportation strategies, is a central component of Rhode Island’s strategy to rein in carbon pollution. Without TCI kickstarting efforts, the state will have an even steeper hill to climb as it seeks to achieve legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets set in the Act on Climate. 

Rhode Island should apply the program’s central principles of equity, inclusive decision-making, and clean mobility priorities to redress myriad problems inherent with current transportation planning practices. Rhode Island must work with environmental justice communities to advance air quality monitoring programs, provide better mobility options, and pursue strategies that reduce the state’s overdependence on single passenger vehicles. 

“We still have to find solutions to several persistent challenges—stubbornly high tailpipe pollution and asthma rates, inadequate bike/pedestrian infrastructure, and underfunded and underutilized public transit. The Act on Climate law is pretty clear that Rhode Island must reduce pollution and without TCI, state agencies are going to have to redouble efforts to do just that.” said Hank Webster, Acadia Center’s Rhode Island Director and member of the Rhode Island’s 2020-2021 Mobility Innovation Working Group.  

Media Contacts: 

Hank Webster, Rhode Island Director and Senior Policy Advocate
hwebster@acadiacenter.org, 401-239-8500 x402, cell: 401 239-8500
144 Westminster St, Suite 203, Providence, RI 02903 

Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director
jstutt@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x105 

Power grid operator needs a makeover

THE LARGEST OFFSHORE wind project in the nation is coming to the waters off Massachusetts, setting our Commonwealth up to be a global leader in clean energy that can deliver on the promise of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating good-paying green jobs across the state. But to get there, and to pave the way for more projects like Vineyard Wind to come online, our electrical infrastructure needs to be prepared to handle these significant new sources of clean energy. Currently, an antiquated power grid — the infrastructure at the core of that transition —  is threatening our progress in reducing emissions and addressing the climate crisis, just as our transition to clean energy is beginning to gain steam.

The transmission grid is the central artery for our electric power systems, determining where our energy comes from, how much that energy costs, and how it’s distributed. In Massachusetts, our transmission grid and energy markets are managed by an organization called ISO New England, which also serves the other five New England states. To date, ISO-NE’s management has prioritized a continuation of the status quo, setting rules that favor polluting fossil fuel plants and perpetuating barriers that make it difficult to connect Massachusetts consumers with cost-effective clean energy.

To ensure the success of Vineyard Wind and the other large-scale clean energy projects that will follow, we need to change the rules for our grid and invest in a smart and reliable clean energy grid that connects us to cost-effective renewable energy throughout the region and stops standing in the way of our critical emissions reduction goals.

First, we need to change how ISO-NE is governed to improve the organization’s accountability and transparency, prioritize input from states like Massachusetts, and ensure decisions are made with input from a more diverse range of stakeholders. ISO-NE must commit to delivering on the New England states’ climate, environmental justice, and policy commitments in both its mission and in its planning, markets, and decisions.

Second, we must reimagine transmission planning to prioritize cost-effective reliability, reflect the climate-focused decision making already enshrined in law by the New England states, and incorporate environmental justice priorities. This will enable the shift away from fossil fuel power plants that pollute our population centers to large-scale clean generation like wind and solar, together with clean distributed energy, as well as cutting-edge energy storage solutions and resilient microgrids.

A planning process dominated by entrenched interests behind closed doors that gives no meaningful weight to state law and policy will only result in a continuation of the status quo. ISO-NE must bring its planning processes into the 21st century. Planning must incorporate data-driven solutions that identify the timing and location of transmission that will optimize the grid to reach our critical clean energy goals in a cost-effective manner.

Finally, we need to change the old-fashioned assumptions of the energy markets that prohibit clean energy resources from fair competition and give fossil fuels a leg up. Even though every New England state has made commitments to reduce emissions and increase renewable energy procurement, ISO-NE maintains a market with a thumb on the scale for fossil fuels. Reforms should align with states’ climate objectives and remove barriers that stand in the way of allowing renewable energy projects to come online quickly and compete fairly. Although a significant redesign of the ISO-NE markets will take time, it’s necessary to secure the buy-in of all stakeholders, including New Englanders who have been burdened by the current system’s reliance on costly and polluting fossil fuel plants.

With the potential for our state to produce around 800 terawatt hours of energy from offshore wind alone, we’re at an inflection point for clean energy and clean jobs in Massachusetts. There is no doubt that the decisions we make now will determine the fate of our burgeoning clean energy economy and our region’s efforts to cut harmful pollutants. With the passage of the Next Generation Climate Roadmap, we now have the framework to achieve critical climate goals across the Commonwealth. There is a queue of innovative and exciting clean energy projects in the pipeline that will allow us to rapidly increase our renewable energy procurement over the next decade. Now we need a reformed ISO-NE to deliver the modernized grid that will make that innovation possible.

Published in CommonWealth Magazine.

Jennifer Benson is the president of the Alliance for Business Leadership and Amy Boyd is the director of policy at the Acadia Center.

FERC and ISO-NE: Help or Hindrance to Reaching State Clean Energy Goals?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the federal agency that regulates energy markets and electric transmission lines, has a big impact on whether New England can effectively fight climate change. FERC’s control over energy markets and transmission influences New England’s ability to eliminate dirty power plants from communities that have suffered the health impacts of pollution for too long, and to replace those dirty plants with climate-safe energy and green jobs. That’s why Acadia Center is recommending that FERC adopt new rules for transmission planning that will help support New England’s climate and equity goals instead of standing in the way.

FERC can empower New England by helping to create a strong inter-state transmission grid that brings clean, affordable energy to homes and businesses, along with good-paying green energy jobs for New England’s communities. The transmission grid is the central artery for transmitting electric power, determining where energy comes from, how much that energy costs, and to whom it can be delivered. The region needs transmission lines that bring clean energy to homes and businesses to replace the energy from dirty fossil fuel-fired power plants that now pollute population centers across the region. Because transmission lines link multiple states, FERC has federal authority over planning and regulating these lines, though the states retain control over siting.

Given the significant role FERC plays, Acadia Center is encouraged that FERC has launched a new forum to reconsider how it plans electric transmission, including the role that states should play in determining what transmission is needed for the clean energy transition. In this new proceeding, entitled “Building for the Future Through Electric Regional Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation and Generator Interconnection,” FERC is taking input on what policies it can adopt to help states and regions better integrate important public policy – including decarbonization laws and environmental equity – into transmission planning. With input from Acadia Center and others, FERC can help change the course of history across the country and here in the northeast.

Bringing new large-scale clean energy to homes and businesses across New England isn’t the only benefit of better planning. Planning improved transmission will help communities across New England withstand the increasingly frequent storms and volatile weather patterns the climate crisis is already bringing, while integrating flexible and lower-cost solutions like rooftop solar and battery storage into the energy system.

Acadia Center is working with partners across New England and around the country to help FERC develop new rules governing what the transmission grid of the future should look like. On October 12, Acadia Center and its partners submitted opening comments outlining what’s going wrong, what’s going right, and what needs to be improved.

Part of what needs to change is ISO-New England (ISO-NE). ISO-NE is the regional organization that FERC has designated to manage New England’s energy markets and transmission system. Right now, ISO-NE doesn’t consider state climate goals in its energy markets or its transmission planning, and that’s a huge obstacle to the clean energy transition. It is critical that ISO-NE take input early and often from both states and stakeholders in all regional planning, otherwise the region will fail to meet its critical clean energy goals.

Acadia Center has cried foul on ISO-NE before, New England Governors’ Energy Vision: Shifting Power on the Regional Electricity Grid arguing that ISO-NE is hanging onto the dirty fuels of the past. To their credit, the New England Governors have also started to object to ISO-NE’s backward-looking practices, demanding that ISO-NE conduct a study that shows what the energy system will look like in 2050 with state decarbonization goals as a guiding factor.

Acadia Center strongly supports the New England states in their efforts to press ISO-NE for policy accountability, including incorporating state decarbonization goals into transmission planning and regional energy markets. Without these changes, ISO-NE will continue to support dirty gas plants and entrenched interests over the new wind, solar, and storage solutions that should be leading the way. So far, ISO-NE continues to make its decisions behind closed doors, relying mostly on input from entrenched interests including the dirty fuel companies themselves. ISO-NE gives short shrift to the communities that are impacted by its decisions. As Acadia Center has argued before, this needs to change.

Acadia Center is asking FERC to implement reforms that cement the requirement to take state input early on in all regional energy planning, and to help states meet their policy goals, not hinder them. Acadia Center is also asking FERC to instruct ISO-NE to weigh community input and environmental justice, so that New England’s energy systems start to serve the people who rely on them.

The bottom line is that regional energy planning must reflect the policy of the states that make up the region and must protect the interests of the people who live there. Regional energy planners can’t do an end run around democratically determined state policies by hiding behind FERC-delegated federal authorities. FERC should unambiguously direct all its planning organizations across the country, including ISO-NE, to work with the states for the benefit of our communities.

Another benefit of the changes Acadia Center recommends is that through increased coordination and improved planning of both the energy markets and transmission systems, the region can avoid wasting time and money on projects like Northern Pass or NECEC, only for those projects to be canceled. The region should be working toward energy solutions that benefit everyone. This should include energy markets that let clean energy compete on a level playing field, so that states can rely on the markets instead of going it alone when they’re in search of clean energy. It should also include a transmission infrastructure that meets multiple states’ needs and provides benefits for communities across the region, not just in one area.

Acadia Center looks forward to providing more feedback to FERC on what needs to change and working with state leaders to ensure that clean energy and equity no longer take a back seat in New England’s energy planning, including on the transmission grid and in energy markets. As the states work hard to address the climate crisis, it’s time for ISO-NE and FERC to stop standing in the way and start treating the states like real partners.

Governor Lamont strikes out on climate

HARTFORD, CT- Despite overwhelming support from Connecticut voters, Governor Lamont announced Tuesday that he is no longer backing the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P). In his remarks, Governor Lamont cited high gasoline prices as his reason for changing course on TCI-P, stating that this is “not the year” for climate action.

In September, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) released the dire warning that Connecticut is not on track to meet its 2030 and 2050 GHG targets and is failing to meet the goals laid out in the 2008 Global Solutions Warming Act. The primary culprit behind Connecticut’s climate failure is the transportation sector, which now accounts for more climate pollution than Connecticut’s electricity and residential sectors combined. Governor Lamont had previously pointed to TCI-P as a central component of his plan to reduce transportation pollution; apparently, he now thinks we can wait. We won’t.

Acadia Center and our partners in the Connecticut’s Transportation Future coalition have worked tirelessly over the last few years to build support for action on transportation pollution through TCI-P. “Businesses, mayors, community leaders, and public health professionals have come out in support of the program and its economic, public health, and climate benefits,” said Amy McLean, Acadia Center’s Connecticut Director and Senior Policy Advocate. Environmental justice leaders have worked closely with state agencies and the legislature to center equity and transportation justice in Connecticut’s implementation of the TCI-P. “While Governor Lamont appears content to press pause on that important work, we are committed to moving it forward,” said McLean.

“The climate and public health damages from transportation pollution aren’t going away, and the longer we wait, the costlier they get,” said Jordan Stutt, Acadia Center’s Carbon Programs Director. “By delaying action for another year, Governor Lamont is deepening our debt to the next generation.”

Media Contacts:

Amy McLean, Connecticut Director and Senior Policy Advocate
amcleansalls@acadiacenter.org, 860-246-7121 x204, cell: 860 478-9125
21 Oak Street, Suite 202, Hartford, CT 06106

Jordan Stutt, Carbon Programs Director
jstutt@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x105

###

Acadia Center is a nonprofit research and advocacy organization committed to advancing the clean energy future. Acadia Center advocates for an equitable clean energy future for Connecticut, tackling regulatory and legislative energy policy, transportation, energy efficiency, beneficial electrification, utility innovation, and renewable energy.

Does Aquidneck Island need more natural gas?

PROVIDENCE — Is the answer to a projected shortfall in natural gas supplies on Aquidneck Island a new facility that can tap into liquefied stores of the fossil fuel, or can a solution be found by tamping down usage, converting more customers to electric heat and putting an end to new gas connections?

The question is being raised in response to a proposal filed by National Grid with the state Public Utilities Commission that, if approved, would allow the utility to take the first steps in spending $54.5 million over the next three years on a project aimed at closing the potential gap in supplies and creating enough of a cushion to allow gas service to be expanded to even more customers on the island.

…

“We look at the Aquidneck Island case as really being representative of this broader concern of whether it makes sense to keep building gas infrastructure,” said Hank Webster, Acadia’s Rhode Island director. “The community has expressed a preference that the infrastructure does not get built. But it seems like this filing is taking us in the opposite direction.”

Read the full article in The Providence Journal here.