Massachusetts’ Energy Efficiency Plan: Environmental Justice Implications

The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) has approved the state’s Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plan. Spanning 2022 through 2024, the plan intends to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by curbing 845,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions while providing over $9 billion in statewide benefits. In addition to meeting the twin statutory mandates of achieving all cost-effective energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in line with the 2030 Clean Energy and Climate Plan, the 2022-2024 efficiency plan focused on three areas: equity, electrification, and workforce development. 

Over the years, the Commonwealth has been audacious and forward-looking with its climate plans. A significant stride in the state’s commitment to an equitable and just transition was in establishing the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (EEAC) and Mass Save in the Green Communities Act of 2008. Acadia Center strongly supported the formation of the Equity Working Group (EWG) by the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council to sharpen policies beneficial to vulnerable communities and groups but declined a spot on the EWG to make room for more representation of underserved communities. The Equity Working Group and program administrators were instrumental in listing 38 targeted environmental justice communities for particular attention during this three-year plan. Moreover, a portion of the program administrators’ performance incentives was tied to how well they served these underserved communities. In the order on the three-year plan by the DPU, however, the DPU amended the criteria for environmental justice communities agreed upon by the Equity Working Group, EEAC, and program administrators.  

Instead of the criteria being based on income criteria and race or English isolation, a requirement that the whole community has a median income of less than 100% of state median income, and the requirement that greater than 33% of the community resides in an EJ census block group, the DPU revised the criteria to admit the whole municipality (except Boston) even if only one census block has only one EJ criterion. The net result is that an estimated 60 municipalities and Boston neighborhoods will qualify – rather than the 38 deemed most in need of effective efficiency program delivery by the EWG, EEAC, and program administrators. 

The necessity of defining environmental justice communities in the context of race, socioeconomic class, indigenous status cannot be overemphasized. Historically, the impact of energy generation and transmission has been disproportionately borne by black and brown communities and low-income communities. For an equitable transition to a clean and renewable energy system to be feasible, communities and groups that have been marginalized and, in many instances, now face hindrances in accessing energy incentives and programs must be given utmost consideration. The Equity Working Group—and EEAC— exemplify a model for the smooth incorporation of equity solutions in the state’s energy policies and climate goals. But the effectiveness of their policy suggestions in sharpening the future of the state’s energy efficiency plans depends on whether their expertise is valued and their solutions undisputed. 

Equity advisory councils are needed to center equity in state policies and legislatures. But their role can be stymied by lack of agency and authority of the councils to effect relevant changes. Equity advisory forums often represent members of the communities in various capacities and have members ranging from environmental and climate advocacy organizations, environmental justice communities, and community-based groups as well as small businesses. State and regional leaders must learn to trust the expertise of equity advisory forums to yield equity-informed solutions. Acadia Center understands how policies can become even better when public agencies focus on their mandate with equity guidance. We will continue to advocate for equity and climate goals to take center stage in all policy reforms at local and state agencies, and the overall regional progress of the northeast.  

 

New England takes a detour on grid reform; griping ensues

It was a shocker.

Katie Dykes, Connecticut’s commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, earlier this month got onboard with a two-year delay for a key component of her pet project — reforming the New England electric grid.

Definitely a shocker.

For nearly a decade, Dykes has railed against the operator of the grid, ISO-New England, and the way it purchases power, saying it hinders the build out of renewable energy, which comes from a source that is not depleted when used, such as wind or solar power. But after building regional momentum to change that dynamic, Dykes blinked.

Instead of ending a year from now, a key rule for acquiring future power for the grid will end three years from now, with agreement from Dykes.

Not that Dykes voted for the delay. But she didn’t vote against it either. “Not opposing” was the official disposition.

“It’s a long way from not opposing to supporting,” she explained several days after the decision.

But renewable energy advocates around the region are nothing short of appalled and point fingers straight at ISO-NE, which they say changed its mind at the very last minute and played an often-used trump card — that reliability of the grid would be at stake if the rule changed next year.

“As someone who has responsibility for meeting state policy goals and assuring that we’re doing so in an affordable, reliable way, I can’t just outright dismiss the ISO’s rationale for this preference, i.e., reliability,” Dykes said. “And that’s why we didn’t oppose.”

Francis Pullaro, executive director of RENEW Northeast, a group uniting renewable energy and environmental advocates, said the states were put in a difficult position.

“They don’t know what the ISO needs. They’re not looking at the system like the ISO is. I can be sympathetic to that. I have my own perspective,” he said. “No one’s going to call me if the system collapses, right? It’s a sensitive topic.”

Meet the MOPR

The rule in the cross-hairs is called the minimum offer price rule, universally referred to in the energy world as the MOPR.

Once a year, the ISO runs what’s called a forward capacity auction. It’s a low-price-wins auction to determine what generating resources will go into its Forward Capacity Market, the power it plans to have available three years in advance. It gives the ISO the security that power will be there, and it provides a commitment to potential new power sources so they can get financed and built.

The MOPR is a key component, setting the lowest price that a resource can offer in the forward capacity auction.

Mainly, the power projects want to recoup their construction costs. Many, if not most, renewable and clean energy resources have state-sponsored contracts and other sorts of subsidies, so part of those costs are already covered. But under the MOPR, they have to factor the entire cost into their bid, not just the uncovered portion.

Worries persist about storm response if Narragansett Electric sale goes through

PROVIDENCE — On the eve of a blizzard last month that would bring heavy snow and strong winds to southern New England, National Grid mobilized a force of 3,600 line and tree crew members and other field personnel in Rhode Island and Massachusetts who were ready to respond to outages across the region.

As it turned out, while the storm on Jan. 29 buried parts of Rhode Island under more than two feet of snow, the number of calls for downed lines was minimal and only a few dozen households in the state lost power.

But there was a measure of security in the sheer number of personnel the utility was able to call in to prepare for the storm. If anything had happened, 1,000 workers were on hand in Rhode Island and another 2,600 were spread across several locations in Massachusetts, ready to be deployed where they were needed.

It’s one small example of how Rhode Island benefits from being part of a larger area in the Northeast that is served by National Grid, a system that also includes parts of Massachusetts and New York.

Now, some experts worry that things could change if state regulators approve a $5.3-billion proposal to sell National Grid’s electric and natural gas business in Rhode Island, known as the Narragansett Electric Company, to PPL Corporation, of Pennsylvania.

To be sure, PPL is a big company serving 2.5 million customers, with more than a century of experience in providing energy to homes and businesses, but its other holdings are far from Rhode Island, in Pennsylvania and Kentucky.

And more than one party arguing in the approval proceedings before the deputy administrator of the state Division of Public Utilities and Carriers has raised concerns that storm response in Rhode Island could suffer if the deal goes through.

“When you have a state — particularly the smallest state in the United States — having to rely on a utility that’s not contiguous, that can create operation problems and costs,” Gregory Booth, a consultant to the DPUC’s advocacy section, testified during a hearing that stretched over several days in December.

PPL says storm response could actually improve

Executives with PPL say just the opposite — that storm response could actually improve if the DPUC’s ruling, expected by Feb. 25, is to approve the transaction.

They argue that the distance between Rhode Island and the company’s current holdings would actually benefit the Ocean State in the event of a bad storm. That’s because the chances of a single weather system damaging electric systems in Rhode Island, and also in Pennsylvania or Kentucky, are slim.

If Rhode Island is expected to be hit hard, resources elsewhere in the PPL network would likely be available, the thinking goes. And that, company representatives contend, is actually a better situation than having one utility serving several states close to one another that could all be hammered by a storm at once.

Based on an analysis of federal weather data between 1995 and 2020, there’s only a 15-20% chance of a tropical storm in Pennsylvania or Kentucky also reaching Rhode Island, PPL says. But the likelihood of a storm in Massachusetts hitting Rhode Island too is 45-50%, according to written testimony from David Bonenberger, a PPL vice president who would head up the company’s operations in Rhode Island.

“So we feel that we’ll have more capability to provide resources to bring to bear in the event Rhode Island gets hit with severe damage,” he said in the hearing, adding that workers could be deployed to the state in advance if forecasters predict a severe storm.

Concerns over costs to ratepayers

But not everyone is convinced by PPL’s argument. The office of Attorney General Peter Neronha, which has raised a host of concerns about the sale, countered that bringing in crews from as far away as Kentucky — as opposed to Massachusetts — could cost ratepayers more money.

In his testimony, Bonenberger said the company doesn’t know how the deal would affect storm-response costs, the attorney general’s office pointed out in a filing following the hearing.

“Despite thousands of pages of document responses and days of testimony, Petitioners have not demonstrated that similar storm response performance will be achieved at the same or lesser cost as the status quo, and Petitioners have not made the bare minimum demonstration of no harm to the public in their capacity as ratepayers,” Neronha’s office wrote.

Experts working with the office have also said that ratepayers currently benefit from cost efficiencies in the way that National Grid keeps personnel and supplies at locations shared between Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

Booth, the DPUC consultant, made a similar point in regard to transformers and other electrical equipment. Narragansett Electric has access to a larger fleet of backup supplies through National Grid affiliates in New York and Massachusetts than it would if it was on its own. And much of that equipment is tailored specifically to the National Grid system. To have the same level of coverage in the region under PPL would require additional investments, Booth argued.

Hank Webster, Rhode Island director of the Acadia Center, a clean energy advocacy group that has raised other questions about the purchase, asked Booth about this at the hearing.

“Would a helpful analogy be that the National Grid family of companies are like, say, a Ford dealership and potentially the PPL companies are like a Chevy dealership, so in terms of stocking the inventory for the parts for their respective systems, there would be a change by separating out Narragansett and putting it into a new system?” Webster asked.

“Well, at a high level that’s probably a reasonable analogy, but transformers are so very specific voltage-wise, capacity-wise, winding-wise that it’s even much more different than a Chevy and a Ford,” Booth responded.

Mutual assistance pacts would help

In response to questions this week, representatives of PPL and National Grid said the companies are taking steps to ensure a smooth transition. They plan to enter into a mutual assistance agreement that would give each other access to field crews and backup equipment, including transformers, in times of need. Existing agreements with other industry groups would also roll over.

Additionally, PPL would manage storm response from a control center in Lincoln that is currently used as a backup to National Grid’s primary facility for the region in Northborough, Massachusetts.

During the regulatory proceedings, lawyers for PPL have largely dismissed the criticism, saying that opponents to the transaction are essentially arguing that no other utility can take over from National Grid unless it has the same reach into Massachusetts and New York.

“It may be likely that incumbency provides National Grid with some advantages in certain areas over the short term,” they said in a filing after the hearing. “But it is just as likely that an experienced and successful utility operator like PPL will find other ways to produce value, reduce costs, and more efficiently operate Narragansett.”

Read the full article at The Providence Journal here.

Power for the People: 1/26/22: The Regional Electrical Grid

Melissa Birchard, Acadia Center’s Senior Regulatory Attorney joins producer and host Steve Kahl of the podcast “Power for the People” for an engaging conversation about regional clean energy resources. Listen here.

Transit Equity Day event calls for fairness in public transportation

The Transit Equity Day event in Providence, delayed one week because of a snowstorm, was held in coordination with 40 other events across the the United States and timed to take place on the birthday of civil rights icon Rosa Parks. In Providence, the event was geared around a call for a Rosa Parks commemorative bus shelter, to commend RIPTA and its drivers for getting Rhode Islanders to their destinations during the pandemic, and to urge state leaders to work harder to achieve transportation equity for all residents.

RIPTA (Rhode Island Public Transit Authority) is the public-private entity that oversees Rhode Island’s public transportation system. RIPTA is currently working on implementing the state’s first Transit Master Plan and using that as a guide for improving transit equity.

Two issues not mentioned at the Transit Equity Day event were the plan to make all rides on RIPTA buses free and the plan to get rid of Providence’s central bus hub in Kennedy Plaza in favor of a new central hub on Dorrance Street.

Uprise RI asked RIPTA CEO Scott Avedesian, who attended the Transit Equity Day event, if, given his and RIPTA’s commitment to equity, he would schedule hearings on the downtown Providence bus hub that were in person, not just virtually on computers. After all, many who use the bus do not have access to computers. Avedesian told UpriseRI that the first three meetings, already scheduled, would be held remotely and made a weak commitment to having at least one meeting in person after that, if COVID permits.

Well over 80 people attended the Transit Equity Day event, including members of the Rhode Island Transit Riders Alliance, George Wiley Center, the Kennedy Plaza Coalition, NAACP Providence Branch, the BLM RI PAC, the RI Bicycle Coalition, Climate-Justice-Rhode Island, the Providence Streets Coalition, and Grow Smart RI. Around 50 students from Providence’s Charette High School marched across the city to attend.

What is transit equity? Event co-organizer Liza Burkin, a coordinator for the Providence Streets Coalition, defined it as “acknowledging the racist past of transportation planning and fighting every day for a more inclusive and just mobility future.”

In a press release, Harrison Tuttle, executive director of the Black Lives Matter RI PAC, called on elected officials to “continue to prioritize investment in our public transit for communities of color. This will result in more job opportunities and access to future endeavors for generations to come.”

“Transit Equity Day is a day to call for action in our everyday lives to promote transit equity,” said Rhode Island Transit Rider Rochelle Lee. “A day to connect the voices of those who endure hardship and the inequities of racial segregation.”

Jim Vincent, President of the NAACP Providence Branch reminded everyone of Rosa Parks and her special place in the history of civil rights and transit equity.

“Rosa Parks was the branch secretary of the Montgomery, Alabama NAACP. It was the NAACP in Alabama that decided that Rosa was going to test the 14th Amendment in terms of equal protection,” said Vincent. “So Rosa Parks who was fired, and had death threats to her dying day in Detroit, where she had to flee to, is an American hero.”

Parks made history by refusing to give up her seat on a bus to a white man.

“A lot of people point to that moment as the start of the civil rights movement,” noted Vincent.

“Rosa Parks fought for the BIPOC community,” said Terri Wright, life-long bus rider and member of Direct Action for Rights and Equality (DARE). “And this is why we have freedom and rights when we ride.” Wright defined sustainable communities as those that “begin with transit equality, quality housing, and public health.”

“What does climate and energy have to do with transit equity, which is what we’re here to talk about today?” asked Mal Skowron, transportation policy and program coordinator at Green Energy Consumers Alliance. “The fact is that all of the causes of our climate crisis are the same causes of the transit inequity that we have seen for the last 50 or 60 years and continue to see today.”

“Rhode Island has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address the inequities that have for decades overburdened communities with harmful air pollution and a lack of mobility options,” said Hank Webster, the Acadia Center’s Rhode Island director. “Policymakers have a clear choice: prioritize transit-oriented development connected to a robust, multimodal, sustainable public transportation network that supports access to good jobs, educational opportunities, and vital healthcare services, or…continue to focus investment on the polluting, inequitable, car-centric status quo.”

“Charette focuses on urban planning and historic preservation,” said Angel Garcia, a senior at Charette High School, “Charette depends on RIPTA. On a monthly basis students are given a WAVE card that helps us to get to school, go to and from school, work, sports, extracurriculars.”

Nick DeCristofaro, president and business agent for the Rhode Island Amalgamated Transit Union, said that transit equity includes fair pay and good contracts for RIPTA workers.

“I’d like to join you in highlighting the need for transit equity and what we can do to achieve the transit services that our residents deserve,” said Representative Carlos Tobon (Democrat, District 58, Pawtucket), who chairs the House Finance subcommittee on transportation and the environment. Tobon noted that represents Pawtucket, “where transportation is highly utilized. I firmly support the efforts to instill transit equity by improving transit.”

Senator Meghan Kallman (Democrat, District 15, Pawtucket) And fellow Pawtucket Representative Leonela Felix (Democrat, District 61, Pawtucket) have bills in the Senate and House to make RIPTA free to all riders. UrpriseRI asked Representative Tobon if he supported these bills given his position on the House Finance Committee and his support or transit equity. Tobon replied that as a “numbers person” he would need assurances that such a plan would be feasible before he supported it.

Greg Nardine, RIPTA’s Chief of Strategic Advancement, spoke of specific programs and plans to make RIPTA more equitable, including the implementation of RIPTA’s Wave Card, new routes, and the full electrification of RIPTA’s R-Line, it’s most used rout.

Patricia Raub of the Rhode Island Transit Riders ended the speaking program by calling for the completion of a new, Rosa Parks commemorative bus shelter on Smith Street in front of the Department of Administration and across the street from the State House, where the event was held.

See video footage of the event and read the full article at Uprise RI here.

In a significant step to reduce emissions, state officials propose new building codes to promote energy efficiency

In a move that could have a significant impact on the state’s ability to make drastic cuts to its carbon emissions, state officials on Tuesday released a much-anticipated proposal for new building codes that would require new homes and offices to be far more energy efficient.

The controversial proposal, which also calls for sweeping changes to existing building codes, would require developers to use more energy efficient construction materials; install solar panels wherever possible; and among a range of other measures, wire new homes, offices, and other buildings with the necessary cables to enable them to use heat pumps and appliances that don’t use fossil fuels.

But some said the proposal doesn’t go far enough to end the use of oil and natural gas in future construction projects, as developers, in some cases, would still be allowed to install the necessary pipes and other infrastructure so their buildings could continue to use fossil fuels.

“The proposed updates to the state’s building codes seek to strike an important balance between energy efficiency in residential and commercial building construction, and continued housing production across the commonwealth, as the state works to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Troy Wall, a spokesman for the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

State lawmakers and environmental advocates welcomed the proposal, which was required by the state’s landmark climate law that took effect last year and mandates that the state cut its emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by the end of the decade and effectively eliminate them by 2050. But they hoped regulators would make changes to the proposal before the law requires it to be enacted by the end of the year.

“There’s real progress here, and yet I’m disappointed,” said state Senator Michael Barrett, a Lexington Democrat and one of the climate bill’s lead negotiators. “What is missing is significant. This proposal gives permission to put new natural gas infrastructure into the ground, when we know those assets will have to be abandoned to meet our climate goals.”

He added: “The Baker administration has kicked the proverbial can down the road, and I don’t know how long we can wait. This is a new lease on life for natural gas assets.”

Representatives for developers, who worry that any new building requirements could hike the costs of construction, said they would evaluate the state’s proposal carefully.

“There is no doubt that the proposed update will have an impact on development across the state,” said Tamara Small, chief executive of NAIOP Massachusetts, a lobbyist for developers and building owners. “We look forward to working with the administration and other stakeholders to ensure any negative impacts on economic development and housing are mitigated to ensure a practical achievement of the state’s climate goals.”

With about one-quarter of the state’s emissions coming from its buildings, Patrick Woodcock, commissioner of the state Department of Energy Resources, estimated that the new building codes would reduce emissions by at least 500,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year in 2030 and save up to $21 billion in construction and operating costs for new buildings.

In an online presentation, Woodcock said new technology and lower fuel costs would save property owners money over the long term. He said it was important for the state to focus first on new construction. He estimated that 27 percent of the buildings that will exist in 2050 haven’t been built yet.

“We need to move forward with integrating the most cost-effective climate solutions into new construction today,” he said.

He added there would be “spillover effects” from the focus on new construction, as it would allow for the training of contractors to perform similar work on existing properties when they are eventually remodeled. It’s unclear if and when the state might require existing buildings to reduce their emissions.

The state’s proposal would update the so-called “stretch” energy code that dates back to the passage of the 2008 Green Communities Act, which provided a range of incentives for communities to require energy efficient development. The vast majority of the state’s towns and cities have adopted the stretch code, so named because it has requirements that extend beyond the state’s base building code.

The proposal would also create a new, more ambitious “specialized” stretch code that aims to have all new buildings either emit no greenhouse gases or have the ability to offset their emissions by producing renewable energy. It would also promote the construction of so-called passive housing, which requires little energy to heat or cool.

Participation in the new stretch code would be voluntary, but state officials said those that take part would be eligible for some $600 million in energy efficiency incentives over the next decade.

The proposed codes provide a legal path for communities to accelerate their efforts to reduce emissions, as some have seen their past efforts stymied. In 2020, for example, Attorney General Maura Healey rejected a bylaw passed by Brookline residents that banned the installation of oil and gas pipes in new and substantially renovated buildings, which would have been the first such prohibition in Massachusetts.

“The proposed changes to the stretch code could be a game-changer for the trajectory of these emissions, and how both residential and commercial new construction happens going forward,” said Cammy Peterson, director of clean energy at the Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

But she worried the proposal was overly reliant on the market.

“Without more stringent performance standards or requirements, builders and owners may still be reluctant to switch away from fossil fuels,” Peterson said.

Kyle Murray, a senior policy advocate at the Acadia Center, an environmental advocacy group in Boston, said he was happy the state’s proposal focuses on reducing emissions in low-rise residential buildings as much as larger commercial buildings.

But he called the decision to allow new buildings to continue to use fossil fuels “puzzling.”

“This represents that opportunity to have a gold standard code in place in the commonwealth,” he said. “I would hate for us to miss that opportunity.”

Read the full article in The Boston Globe here.

Climate Advocate Training: How to advocate for a strong Act on Climate plan

Acadia Center’s Rhode Island Director and Senior Policy Advocate, Hank Webster, presented an advocacy training for over 160 climate activists, sharing tips on how to inject climate concerns into a plethora of state agency decisions. Joined on the panel by Dr. Carrie Gill from the state’s Office of Energy Resources and Professor Dawn King from Brown University, Webster provided a detailed look at key provisions of the 2021 Act on Climate law and encouraged attendees to engage in a wide variety of regulatory opportunities to demonstrate how climate action is required across all levels of government, from the Department of Transportation to the Building Code Commission. Webster also issued an open invite to all attendees join the ongoing Act on Climate Implementation group convened by Acadia Center last year to help guide the development of the 2022 Climate Action Plan. You can watch a recording of training here and view Acadia Center’s slides here.

Rhode Island PUC Approves Rate Increases to Fund Energy Programs

WARWICK, R.I. — Residents can expect to see a modest bump in their utility bills this year to support energy-efficiency programs. The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission (PUC) recently approved new rates for National Grid’s energy-efficiency programs (EEP).

National Grid estimates residential electric customers who use an average of 500 kilowatt-hours a month will have an increase of 57 cents on their monthly bills allocated specifically for EEP. Gas customers using 702 therms — a therm is a unit of gas measurement — can expect to see an additional charge of $32.28 spread across the next 11 months.

EEPs in Rhode Island are funded by a line item on utility bills called “Systems Benefit Charges.” It funds programs such as free home energy audits, incentives for energy-efficient upgrades, help paying heating bills, and net metering. Local governments, state departments and educational institutions can apply for grants to fund renewable energy projects.

The total budget approved to be collected from ratepayers’ bills is $109 million from electric customers and $36.9 million from gas customers. It is a significant departure from National Grid’s original proposal of $122 million for electric programs. PUC spokesperson Thomas Kogut said there were “significant adjustments on the electric side.”

Some say the amount allocated for EEP programs is not enough.

“Energy efficiency is the single best tool we have to fight climate change and protect against wildly volatile fossil fuel prices,” said Hank Webster, state director of the Acadia Center, a nonprofit headquartered in Maine.

A 2020 market potential study of the state’s energy-efficiency programs commissioned by the Rhode Island Energy Efficiency & Resource Management Council found that to reach the maximum benefit for its programs, expenditures for electric and gas would have to be $200 million and $90 million, respectively.

“We have a lot of work to do to align programs to improve the programs for low- and moderate-income households that have high energy burdens and often deal with inadequate insulation, obsolete fossil fuel equipment, and other serious health hazards,” Webster said.

The three-member PUC indicated at its Jan. 25th meeting that it had heard much from stakeholders about equity in the programs.

“Energy efficiency and renewable energy and other programs all create opportunities for customers to become energy suppliers and benefit from providing energy supply to the utility,” commissioner Abigail Anthony said. “Customers who stand to gain the most are those who own property and can invest in [the programs.] Some of the inequitable outcomes from energy efficiency and all programs stem from decades of policies that prevented people from owning property and building wealth.”

Read the full article in ecoRI News here.

A decision made behind closed doors may set clean energy back by two years

Lack of transparency feeds skepticism of Massachusetts’ clean heat commission

Massachusetts climate advocates are hopeful but not yet convinced that a first-in-the-nation state Commission on Clean Heat will result in adequate policies for transitioning buildings from fossil fuels.

Gov. Charlie Baker signed an executive order establishing the commission in September. In the months that followed, the administration shared little about the process of assembling the panel, declining even to identify its members until the group was sworn in and met for the first time on Jan. 12.

Following the commission’s first closed-door meeting, many advocates are left wary of the group’s makeup, transparency, and timeline.

“I remain hopeful that the commission will use its opportunity to address the climate crisis and push the commonwealth away from more reliance on fossil fuels in equitable ways,” said Amy Boyd, director of policy at the nonprofit Acadia Center. “But I think it may take a lot of work to get there.”

Building use of fossil fuels, for purposes such as heating and cooking, accounts for 27% of Massachusetts’ greenhouse gas emissions and poses a major challenge to the state’s attempts to slash emissions in half by 2030 and go carbon-neutral by 2050.

As part of this process, at the end of 2020, the Baker administration released a decarbonization roadmap outlining strategies for reaching this goal, including tighter building envelopes and widespread adoption of electric heat pumps. Among the goals detailed in the report is a target of retrofitting 100,000 homes with electric heat pumps each year, but a recent Boston Globe investigation found just 461 homes were converted in 2020.

The commission is tasked with helping translate the administration’s strategies into concrete policy ideas that will help accelerate this progress. The panel is expected to meet regularly for several months with the goal of submitting its recommendations to the administration by Nov. 30, shortly before Baker, who is not running for re-election, hands over the reins to a new, incoming governor.

Environmental advocates universally praised the goals of the commission and expressed sometimes precarious optimism that the group could have an important impact on emissions reductions.

“I am hopeful that they can get to work and that they can come up with some really path-breaking recommendations that lead to the decarbonization of that sector,” said Elizabeth Turnbull Henry, president of the Environmental League of Massachusetts.

Still, advocates are keeping a wary eye on the commission’s progress.

When Baker announced the formation of the commission, he promised a group that would have a “diversity of experience.” The 21 members revealed in January are drawn from a range of industries and backgrounds, including utilities, building, finance, real estate, housing, urban planning, energy, and technology.

However, some environmental advocates are not sure the promised diversity is there. One member is an expert on green building, another has experience retrofitting houses for greater energy efficiency, and another has long worked on clean energy policy, but these environmentally leaning members are far outnumbered by other interests, advocates worry.

“I’m disappointed to see that the sectors most represented on the commission are business and fossil fuels, rather than consumers, environmental justice communities, or building electrification experts,” Boyd said.

Other advocates expressed concern that a commission could produce great recommendations that just don’t go anywhere. Henry pointed to the Commission on the Future of Transportation, established by Baker in 2018.

The group’s December 2018 report included a range of policy suggestions, such as modernizing public transportation, considering congestion pricing, and upgrading the electric grid to support wider adoption of electric vehicles. At the same time, however, it skirted the question of how to pay for the initiatives outlined and didn’t include any mechanisms for driving action or holding policymakers accountable, Henry said. So this time around, she is hoping the clean heat commission will make questions of funding and implementation central to their work.

“Massachusetts has a long history of grandiose commissions that yield little in terms of actual policy progress,” Henry said. “I am really going to be looking at the quality of the recommendations and the actionability.”

Larry Chretien, executive director of the Green Energy Consumers Alliance, is also concerned about the commission’s commitment to laying out effective policy specifics. Chretien would like to see the group engage deeply with the public, sharing ideas, listening to feedback, and releasing a draft of its recommendations before its November deadline, so it can hear back from stakeholders before making its official report to the administration.

This kind of robust engagement, he said, will help create a plan with strong enough public backing to survive a change of leadership when a new governor takes office in January 2023.

“If they come out with something in November, and the governor-elect doesn’t like it, and there hasn’t been enough public comment, it will have been a wasted year,” Chretien said.

For some advocates, the commission’s timeline is dragging out an already lingering process at a time when the climate crisis is ever more urgent. Ben Hellerstein, state director of Environment Massachusetts, wondered why the state is just now convening the commission, nearly three years after it began working on the climate roadmap in 2019.

Hellerstein would like to see more action right away, rather than another 10 months of meetings and debates.

“We have the technologies to reduce energy waste and heat our buildings with clean electricity, and there are plenty of policy ideas out there,” Hellerstein said. “Studies and commissions are nice, but if we have to choose I’d rather spend less time confirming what we already know, and more time on the action that’s urgently needed.”

Read the full article in Energy News Network here.