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.

Massachusetts Proposed Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plan Would Deliver Record-Setting Benefits For a Modern Energy Economy

Massachusetts is on the verge of having another nation-leading Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plan, this time specifically aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reaching environmental justice communities. Thanks to the requirements of the Climate Act of 2021 and the efforts of the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (EEAC), on which Acadia Center is a voting member representing the environmental community, the proposed plan introduces new elements to energy efficiency planning in the Commonwealth that will deliver record-setting ratepayer benefits and drive meaningful greenhouse gas emissions reduction to help meet our state’s climate targets.

The proposed plans call for a $3.94 billion investment in energy efficiency, which will provide around $13 billion in ratepayer benefits, the highest levels in New England. The Climate Act of 2021 set a greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirement for the plans for the first time ever. The expected reductions that this plan offers (845,916 metric tons of CO2e) will exceed the target set by the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (845,000 metric tons of CO2e).

To meet these targets, the program administrators (PAs) set the social cost of carbon at $393 per ton and the discount rate at 1%, treating the future impacts of climate change as more significant than in prior plans. These figures were appropriately set to “account for the intergenerational nature of climate change,” based upon a study commissioned by the PAs. Under the Climate Act of 2021, the D.P.U. must prioritize equity and greenhouse gas emissions reduction in its decisions. Utilizing these values provides a way in which the D.P.U. can appropriately value the health of future generations in compliance with its expanded mandate.

Following more than a year of work with the Equity Working Group subcommittee of the EEAC, the Three-Year Plan includes an innovative commitment to closely monitoring participation, expenditures, savings, and benefits in 38 environmental justice communities around the state. The EEAC also got the PAs to agree to link a piece of their bonus (or performance incentive) to the amount of ratepayer benefits they generate from these 38 communities and how well they meet their electrification targets.  These performance incentives can induce PAs into behavior they would not normally prioritize and to align with the Commonwealth’s policy choices. A different approach to give the PAs a bonus based on how well they served renters in the last Three-Year Plan was rejected by the D.P.U., but Acadia Center is confident that this essential proposal will survive scrutiny.

Acadia Center is participating in the dockets (D.P.U. 21-120 through 21-129) as full intervenors, actively appearing in evidentiary hearings and submitting both Initial and Reply Briefs. Acadia Center believes these groundbreaking plans are well within the authority for the D.P.U. to approve.

The D.P.U. is set to make its decision on this plan in late January. The plan represents an unprecedented opportunity to provide benefits to ratepayers, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and critical advances in equity and electrification. Acadia Center urges the D.P.U. to approve these groundbreaking plans as they are.

Pressing for Environmental and Climate Justice for a Just Transition as we celebrate MLK Day

This week we remember the foremost civil rights leader, Rev. (Dr.) Martin Luther King Jr., and the giant strides of the civil rights movement in cementing justice and equity into the fabric of our society. The impact of the movement was not limited to social justice, it informed the tenets of environmental justice, and it is shaping clean energy solutions and policies for a just transition.

When institutions and agencies fail to build in equity, justice, and the plight of disadvantaged communities, the failure in policies is glaring. Historically, this has been the course of environmental injustice in the United States. From the siting of power plants and waste facilities, the concentration of industries and factories, and housing discrimination, policies that segregate and primarily benefit affluent white communities are still hampering progress on environmental and climate justice alike. This disproportionate burden of environmental pollution and harm suffered by mostly people of color through unjust policies and practices is environmental racism.

The absence of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) lens as we transition to clean energy and meet climate goals could lead to a repeated pattern that compounds environmental racism, leaving black and brown communities behind from thriving in a clean environment and a safe climate. Equity and justice in the energy and climate landscape is a consideration of high energy burden people in low-income communities and communities of color experience; policy forums with more representation and voices from the most impacted communities of environmental and climate inactions; specific programs catered to renters for housing retrofits as well as the enactment of legislatures that meets their needs. From building decarbonization and electrification to public transportation to diversity and representation in policy forums, policies and laws that cater to all must be put in place for a truly just transition.

Across the country, states, municipalities, and agencies are incorporating equity and justice into their climate policies and action plans.  Our goal at Acadia Center is to ensure that agencies, policymakers, and public officials at all levels are held accountable to the enacted climate goals, and provide research and solutions that address climate inequities and pitfalls to climate inactions and injustice. This was why we advocated that the third program review of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) centers equity by prioritizing the needs of environmental justice communities. In Maine, Acadia Center is keeping tabs on the LD1682 implementation process as the state progresses on defining “environmental justice”, “environmental justice populations”, “frontline communities” in the context of Maine. We are providing equity-centered solutions to connect regulatory silos and help regulators and the grid provide services to consumers while prioritizing equity and environmental justice through Reforming Energy System Planning for Equity and Climate Transformation (RESPECT).

Our efforts stem from the understanding that climate solutions are most impactful when guided by the values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice. The success in tackling emissions and creating a future that relies on clean energy depends on a transition that is well planned to lift and benefit all communities, regardless of race, class, and ethnicity. As we celebrate the legacy of Rev. (Dr.) Martin Luther King Jr. and his contributions today, we are reminded of our commitment to environmental justice and a clean and safe carbon-neutral economy that benefits all people.

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.

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

Massachusetts Needs Innovation and Efficiency – So Why Did The DPU Just Kill One of The Best Ideas?

One of the most forward-looking pieces of the Massachusetts 2022-2024 three-year energy efficiency plan now filed at the Department of Public Utilities is the brainchild of the Cape Light Compact – the proposed Cape and Vineyard Electrification Offering (CVEO). The CVEO would result in retrofitted low-income housing that is all-electric, powered by solar panels, and resilient in storms thanks to onsite storage. It’s exactly the sort of thinking that we need to be doing more of – how to make homes healthier and safer, lower carbon pollution, and make communities more resilient. Plus it’s targeted at the households that still have the least access to heat pumps, solar and storage, even with all the programs we have in those areas. So why did the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) just kill it? On November 5, the DPU requested that it be removed from the programs before it can even be considered. 

Cape Light Compact (CLC) is a municipal aggregator that provides energy to the citizens of towns on the Cape and Vineyard, as well as administering their electric energy efficiency programs. As a municipal aggregator, CLC is different from the other utility program administrators – and often provides more customized offerings to its customers, including higher incentives (though still cost-effective) that drive, not surprisingly, higher customer participation rates. 

Acadia Center has enthusiastically supported CLC’s proposed CVEO since it was first presented to the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council in 2018. It’s exactly what the efficiency programs should be doing to address the intersectional crises of climate, affordable housing, spiking fossil fuel prices, resiliency, and the fact that low- and moderate-income customers aren’t reaping the benefits of solar and storage, despite the SMART program’s best intentions. But the DPU decided on November 5th that it’s just not possible under existing law. Why? 

Through the CVEO, CLC proposed to weatherize and install heat pumps, solar PV, and energy storage in 250 low- and moderate-income homes, heated with oil, propane, or electric resistance heat. The offering combined the existing statewide incentives for weatherization, heat pumps with controls, and demand response through thermostats, with an innovative way to pre-pay existing incentives for energy storage and a third-party ownership model for storage and PV that leverages outside incentive funding to offset the overall ratepayer impact. In other words, it takes the programs the Department has already approved and stretches them farther and deeper to truly serve the best interests of customers of the Cape and Vineyard. Homes would be warm, free of combustion byproducts, cheaper for residents to operate, and resilient in the face of increasing storms and outages – all within the cost-effectiveness screening of the efficiency programs.  

The DPU has already approved incentives for use of energy storage for demand reduction, including allowing 5-year contracts for daily dispatch incentives (i.e., beyond the length of the 3-year plans). But the CVEO’s twist on this idea to pre-pay 10 years of incentives to enable the purchase of a new energy storage system (which would also provide resiliency benefits to the residents) went too far for the DPU – mostly because resiliency benefits are outside the scope of the energy efficiency plans.  

The Green Communities Act was amended in 2018 to include “programs that result in customers switching to renewable energy sources or other clean energy technologies;” as one of the types of offerings that could be included in the 3-year plans. Despite that amendment, the DPU held that energy efficiency funds cannot be used to pay for solar. Because the CVEO proposed to use energy efficiency funds to essentially operate a power purchase agreement with the 3rd party solar developer, the DPU determined that it was just too close to using EE dollars to fund solar panels for its comfort. But what about the comfort of the residents who would benefit from this program? What about the benefit to communities by lowering of emissions with the switch to clean energy sources? What about the recently changed DPU mandate requiring them to factor equity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in their decisions? 

The DPU’s statement that “[it] agrees that facilitating low-income customer access to solar PV while electrifying heating is consistent with Commonwealth policy but doing so requires the intersection of multiple programs” is fairly telling. At the moment, our regulatory system just wasn’t set up to allow this kind of innovation. There are too many silos for money – efficiency, SMART tariff, net metering, demand response, developer funds, and investment tax credits – where the streams cannot be combined. Even though all the money comes from the same place and goes to fund programs that help the same people – Massachusetts ratepayers.  

That’s a problem. But Acadia Center has a solution.  

Acadia Center’s new report Reforming Energy System Planning for Equity and Climate Transformation (RESPECT) takes on some of these regulatory silos and proposes a new way of looking at planning for the future of our grid and consumers. Under RESPECT, regulators could encourage innovative solutions that take on multiple problems and make something even greater than its component parts for the ratepayers. Rather than being bound by the solutions of the past, innovative programs like CVEO could become a guiding example for how to think differently.  

We need to do better for the ratepayers of Massachusetts. We need to be able to use programs that we have, bend them slightly, and feed two birds with one scone. Otherwise, we have no hope of being able to take on the climate crisis with all we’ve got. 

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.

Question 1 Maine Citizen’s Initiative – Electric Transmission Lines

On November 2, Maine voters decided to support Question 1. This Citizen’s Initiative makes changes to state law regarding construction of electric transmission lines, including banning certain projects in Franklin and Somerset Counties and requiring legislative approval of projects on public lands harboring such transmission lines. While Acadia Center did not take a position on Question 1, we recognize that Maine citizens voted their intuition and conscience in the face of a barrage of conflicting messages and ads from New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) supporters and opposition.

The massive capital and planning necessary to transform buildings, transportation, and the electricity grid over the next three decades necessitates major reforms to expand heating and transportation electrification; increase clean energy generation, storage, and delivery of offshore wind and solar; and oversee innovate grid modernization. Acadia Center aims to ensure that the Northeast region rapidly decarbonizes its energy system in line with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations and will continue to work to build a comprehensive zero-carbon energy system by focusing on and prioritizing clean energy solutions, local clean energy resources, deep energy efficiency, utility reform, transportation improvements and innovations, and the phase-out of fossil fuels.  Following the success of Question 1, Acadia Center will continue to hold Central Maine Power (CMP), Hydro-Quebec (HQ), and the Massachusetts utilities to their carbon-reduction and clean energy commitments prior to considering its full and unqualified support for NECEC, which will continue to face legal, policy, and political challenges even after the vote.

As Acadia Center examined the path to a rapid transition away from fossil fuels, it considered the potential for hydroelectric energy from existing impoundments to replace some of the fossil fuels used in the Northeast’s energy mix. The Northeast is currently heavily reliant on fossil fuels, especially natural gas, for electricity generation. According to multiple studies, when electricity comes from excess generation at existing hydro impoundments, it results in dramatically lower carbon emissions than electricity generated by fossil fuels. Beyond the question of whether carbon emissions from hydro are lower, Acadia Center has been open to hydropower imports from existing hydro projects, but only if specific critical conditions are met and expectations fulfilled. Because these conditions and expectations were not definitely met, Acadia Center did not endorse either the energy contract between Hydro-Quebec and Massachusetts utilities or the NECEC line.

In January 2019, Acadia Center joined a multiparty settlement to impose economic and consumer protection conditions on CMP in the Maine Public Utilities Commission’s (MPUC) proceeding on the NECEC transmission line.  In that proceeding, Acadia Center joined the settlement for a certificate of public need and necessity (CPCN) for the NECEC line to strengthen Maine’s economy, protect consumers, and deliver a clean energy future for the state. However, Acadia Center stated that it would only support the line and the contract between HQ and Massachusetts utilities if, and only if, CMP and HQ also:

• Ensured the project advances state and regional climate goals by verifying the emission reductions expected from the contract over its lifetime; and
• Thoughtfully and sensitively protect the Western Maine landscape from unacceptable siting impacts.

Contrary to Acadia Center’s sustained advocacy for transparency and accountability, Massachusetts regulators approved a contract that fails to hold HQ responsible for verifying that electricity deliveries over the NECEC line, if permitted, will continue to produce real, incremental climate benefits over the life of the contract. However, Acadia Center believes that the NECEC does provide real and meaningful benefits to Maine citizens and the climate. For example, earlier this year, Efficiency Maine extended its electric vehicle (EV) rebate program — the EV Accelerator Program — for another year using a one-time $5 million payment it received from the settlement of the NECEC project. The funds will help defray the cost of approximately 2,500 more EV purchases with a quarter of the funds reserved for income-eligible buyers. Efficiency Maine estimates the vehicles added with these funds can save Maine drivers a total of $2 million per year in fuel costs, and more than $18 million over the lifetime of the vehicles. Those same vehicles will prevent an estimated 82,000 tons of CO2 from being emitted over the course of their on-road lifetimes.

A second element of the CPCN settlement sent $1.5 million to Efficiency Maine to promote high-performance heat pump systems in low- and moderate-income homes and in K-12 schools. Efficiency Maine will receive another $13.5 million from the settlement for this heat pump initiative. A third element of the settlement sends $2.5 million to Efficiency Maine to subsidize installation of heat pump water heaters, heat pumps, and weatherization in qualified low-income homes. A fourth element of the settlement allocates $1.5 million to develop public high-speed EV chargers in Lewiston-Auburn, Fairfield, Newport, Bangor, Ellsworth and Belfast. An additional $8.5 million in settlement funds are allocated to building out Maine’s public EV charger network over the next five years. Another part of the fund will help perform an analysis of how the Northeast can achieve economy-wide decarbonization of zero emissions by 2050, as called for in the Maine climate action plan and the IPCC.

Acadia Center is also closely monitoring the PUC’s implementation of LD 1682, a key initiative that we prioritized in the 130^th Legislature and was enacted into statute.  For the first time ever, the PUC must consider greenhouse gas reductions and compliance with Maine’s climate statute in its decision-making. If this law had been in effect when the PUC was considering the NECEC permit, perhaps Commissioners would have ensured that GHG emission reductions promised under the project were more robust, measurable, and verifiable. Whether that would have swayed the final permit decision is unknown, but Acadia Center believes the NECEC project was made stronger through broadband, EV, infrastructure, and heat pump provisions and the potential that the NECEC corridor could be a real shot in the arm to reduce emissions throughout the Northeast. Now, future PUC decision will help save ratepayers money, improve equity and environmental justice outcomes, and support decarbonization.

For more information:

Jeff Marks, Maine Director, jmarks@acadiacenter.org, 207.236.6470 ext. 304

Myth Busters!

We’ve all had the experience of reading a news article, blog or social media post and thinking: “But that’s wrong!” or “This is misinterpreting and misusing the research!” Acadia Center would like to set the record straight on some of the common misconceptions about clean energy and energy efficiency.

Myth: 100% clean energy is a pipedream, and we will always need oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels.

Reality: It’s not a question of “if” the world can run on 100% clean energy, but “when.” Renewable electricity is expected to grow globally by 1,200 gigawatts in the next five years, the equivalent of the total electricity capacity of the U.S. By 2050, many countries will achieve 100% renewable energy, and many countries can meet their energy needs with 100% clean energy. It is feasible around the world AND here in the Northeast.

Myth: Renewable energy is too expensive.

Reality: Renewable energy resources are increasingly cost-competitive compared to fossil fuels and getting more so every day; in fact, solar and wind energy are cheaper than gas power plants in many situations. In addition, it is cheaper to build new renewables – without subsidies – than it is to keep existing coal plants running. The costs of renewable energy keep decreasing, while the cost of aging fossil fuel resources keep increasing, and that’s all before you even factor in the social cost of carbon.

Myth: Energy efficiency is a limited resource because we’ve already made most efficiency gains.

Reality: Energy efficiency is a vast resource that can include everything from huge industrial plants to the elevators in your office building to the toaster on your kitchen counter.  We have massive untapped energy efficiency gains yet to come, as well as energy efficiency resources that can be turned on and off, or up and down, to satisfy demand and ensure reliability during extreme events like heat waves.

Myth: Clean energy and energy efficiency only help the wealthy.

Reality: Everyone benefits when we deploy clean energy resources, because the cost of the energy is reduced. Many low- and moderate-income households live in homes that are much less efficient than average, so targeting clean energy and efficiency work in those places make a huge difference in families’ household budgets. Clean energy helps to eliminate local air pollution, which disproportionately harms low-income communities and communities of color.

Myth: Heat pumps are not cost-effective.

Reality:  Whole-home electrification that includes heat pump installations can save energy and money, especially when paired with common-sense weatherization improvements such as better insulation. Further, electricity rates are somewhat sheltered from the wild fluctuations seen in natural gas prices. This winter residents could suffer the most expensive gas prices in years, but as more renewables are added to our grid, electricity prices can remain stable even when gas prices climb. Best of all, heat pumps help avoid the increasing cost and health impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions, helping to create the clean energy future all deserve.

Unfortunately, misconceptions of this kind continue in our work, so we’ll continue to counter fiction with facts. Watch for more “Myth Busters” coming soon!

Baker Administration’s Energy Bill Attempts to Harness Winds of Fortune

On October 13th, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker filed legislation that he hopes will provide a massive boost to clean energy in the Commonwealth. The legislation contains a number of reforms to the offshore wind procurement process, but centers primarily around the creation of a new Clean Energy Investment Fund. Located at MassCEC, this fund will be financed with $750 million in COVID-19 funds from the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). The Administration hopes that this investment, the “largest investment in the clean energy economy that the Commonwealth has made to date,” will spur the development of a major industry in the state.[1] The Baker administration’s goal seems to be to repeat the success that Massachusetts has had with the life sciences industry, now with the growing clean energy sector. In 2008, then-Governor Patrick signed a $1 billion bond to fund the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center Capital Funding Programs. Thanks to that bill and repeated investments, the life sciences are one of Boston’s most successful industries.[2]

In addition to this substantial investment in clean energy, this legislation also modifies a number of provisions concerning the offshore wind procurement process, which Acadia Center considers to be largely positive. Under current state law, each new bid for long-term offshore wind contracts must be lower than the last accepted bid. Unfortunately, the first bids for offshore wind contracts came in significantly lower than expected. This has made getting each subsequent bid under the cap much more difficult, with the last round of procurement receiving only two bidders.[3] This legislation eliminates the price cap that is currently constraining the industry, which should open the field to many more bidders.

The proposed legislation also eliminates a glaring conflict of interest in the bid selection process. Under current law, the electric distribution companies (EDCs) select the winning contracts from the offshore wind developers, with no protections against the EDCs selecting a bid where they directly partnered with offshore wind developers. This legislation removes this conflict of interest by selecting the Department of Energy Resources as the final arbiter, in consultation with the EDCs. Additionally, this bill implements better flexibility for DOER in selecting a bid to give greater credit to bids that promote economic development, with a focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion; benefits to environmental justice communities; and mitigation and avoidance of detrimental environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Acadia Center welcomes these developments.

The bill is not without its deficiencies, however. Chief among Acadia Center’s concerns is the modification to remuneration from a ceiling of 2.75% to a floor of 2.5%, when it should be eliminated entirely. Under current state law, EDCs can receive up to 2.75% of the total contract price for long-term offshore wind contracts as compensation for holding the contract on its books.[4] The proposed legislation sets this payment at 2.5%.The idea when it originally passed in 2016 was that large-scale offshore wind was a brand-new industry in the United States, and the EDCs faced some uncertainty and risk under the contracts. The offshore wind industry in Massachusetts has since proven itself to be a smart investment that will pay dividends for the EDCs, even without remuneration. Remuneration for EDCs with these contracts is no longer necessary and should be eliminated completely.

The funding of the new trust fund could use improvement as well. While the infusion of $750 million will certainly help jumpstart the industry, the use of ARPA money is concerning. First, the money from ARPA is a one-time source of funding for the Commonwealth. This legislation fails to set up a recurring revenue source, and instead leaves future funding up in the air. Additionally, the money from APRA is time-limited and must be expended by December 31, 2026.[5] These factors leave the future of this new fund uncertain.

Finally, the specific purposes listed for the Fund are somewhat vague and unclear. For example, it is not currently clear if the definition of clean energy technology would include the heat pump industry for home electrification. Given that the administration’s own Clean Energy and Climate Plan calls for the installation of one million heat pumps by 2030, it would be foolish to possibly exclude the heat pump industry because of vague terminology.[6]

Overall, Acadia Center appreciates the work put into this legislation by the Baker administration. We look forward to working with them and the legislature to make this bill as strong as possible to deliver the clean energy future we all deserve.

[1] According to Governor Baker’s filing letter with the legislation: https://malegislature.gov/Bills/192/H4204

[2] See https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/06/15/business/has-boston-become-silicon-valley-biotech/

[3] See https://commonwealthmagazine.org/energy/2-offshore-wind-developers-submit-bids/

[4] See https://commonwealthmagazine.org/energy/dpu-gives-168m-offshore-wind-bonus-to-utilities/

[5] See https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/SLFRPFAQ.pdf

[6] See https://www.mass.gov/doc/interim-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2030-december-30-2020/download