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

Supporting Public Health, Transportation Investment and Climate Commitments through TCI-P

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island must not squander their opportunity to deliver the clean air and improved transportation options that residents and businesses deserve. Chronic underinvestment—both in marginalized communities and in alternatives to personal vehicles—has resulted in congested roads, inadequate public transit, and isolated communities. At the same time, the imported fossil fuels used to power vehicles remain the region’s most significant contributor to climate change and a major source of locally harmful air pollution.

Bold action is needed to address these growing challenges. One piece of the solution is the Transportation and Climate Initiative Program (TCI-P), a multi-state effort to reduce tailpipe pollution while funding investment in clean transportation projects. In southern New England, the governors of Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have been working together to implement this program to deliver cleaner air and better transportation options.  States must act with urgency and a commitment to equity in advancing this crucial program.

TCI-P also has the support of the region’s residents. Recent polling of Republican, Independent and Democratic voters from Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island found that 70% of the region’s residents support participation in TCI-P. That level of popular support combined with program’s substantial benefits begs the question: what’s holding up the process?  In short, misinformation from Koch-funded networks and the fossil fuel industry have caused temporary delays, but state legislators in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island still have an opportunity to act.

Tackling Shared Challenges in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island

Due to the regional nature of transportation pollution—both vehicle tailpipes and the pollution they emit cross state lines—regional collaboration to confront this challenge is critical. A regional solution is also well suited to address the similar issues that Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are facing. In all three states, TCI-P will improve poor air quality, provide much-needed funds for clean transportation investment, and help the states meet their climate requirements.

Public Health

Transportation pollution causes poor air quality and results in substantial healthcare costs for individuals and the broader public health system. While some of the region’s air pollution comes from upwind states, much it comes from cars, trucks and buses that operate locally, causing significant harm to communities near highways, cities, and ports. Despite the fact that Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island are home to just 3.5% of the country’s population, five of the top 20 Asthma Capitals in the country are located here: New Haven, CT (#5), Worcester, MA (#11), Springfield, MA (#12), Hartford, CT (#17), and Boston, MA (#18) have some of the highest rates of asthma prevalence, emergency department visits due to asthma, and asthma-related fatalities. Making matters worse, that pollution disproportionately harms communities of color: Asian American, African American and Latino residents in Massachusetts are exposed to 36%, 34%, and 28% more particulate matter from transportation, respectively, than white residents.

Fixing the costly and inequitable burdens of transportation pollution will require multiple strategies, but TCI-P will help. Analysis of TCI-P from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health finds that the program will result in over $1 billion in annual health benefits across the three states by 2032 (annual health benefits by state: Massachusetts, $710 million; Connecticut, $360 million; and RI, $100 million). By delivering cleaner air and making walking and biking safer and more accessible, TCI-P will help the region’s residents thrive.

Clean Transportation Investment

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island have all developed robust plans for clean transportation investment. All three plans, designed with significant stakeholder input, are organized around the need to meet climate targets, improve mobility options for all residents, and invest in a resilient and modern transportation system. The specific ideas proposed in these plans include affordable, reliable, electrified public transit, better walking and biking infrastructure, expanded broadband internet, equitable EV incentive programs, and more. In addition to improving air quality and mobility choices, these investments would create much-needed jobs in growing sectors of the economy.

TCI-P would provide an important new source of funding for these investments while supporting the states’ efforts to secure matching federal funds. Over the program’s first 10 years, the three states are projected to receive over $3 billion in proceeds for clean transportation investment (projected proceeds by state: Massachusetts, $1.8 billion; Connecticut, $1 billion; and RI, $249 million). As described by the authors of Rhode Island’s Clean Transportation and Mobility Innovation Report, “this new funding is integral to the full realization of the recommendations made by the Mobility Innovation Working Group”.

Meeting Climate Commitments

Vehicle tailpipes are the largest source of climate pollution in the region by a wide margin. In Connecticut, the transportation sector accounts for more climate pollution than the electricity and residential sectors combined. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island all have binding, economy-wide climate targets in place, but states will fail to achieve those targets without bold action to reduce pollution from the transportation sector. As stated by Commissioner Dykes of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, “we know that we will not be able to meet the legislatively mandated targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 45% by 2030, unless we have a tool that’s as impactful as [TCI-P].”

TCI-P will help participating states achieve their climate commitments by establishing an ambitious yet achievable glide path for transportation decarbonization and by funding investments in clean transportation. The longer we delay action to reduce transportation pollution, the more dramatic—and expensive—the necessary measures will be.

Opposition from Koch-Funded Networks and the Fossil Fuel Industry

Despite broad support for TCI-P, the program does have opposition. In some cases, that opposition stems from genuine concerns around how TCI-P will ensure equitable outcomes for environmental justice communities and other overburdened and underserved populations. Acadia Center has expressed similar concerns and is currently working to advance TCI-P provisions and other policies to secure cleaner air, better transportation options, and more oversight for the communities marginalized by our transportation system.

The loudest opposition to TCI-P, however, comes from two small but vocal camps: organizations with close ties to the Koch network’s dark money, and those who profit more directly from our continued reliance on gasoline and diesel fuels.

Coordinated Opposition

The Yankee Institute in Connecticut and the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity are members of the State Policy Network (SPN), a network of conservative think tanks backed by Koch-funded foundations working to “oppose climate change regulations, lower wages, cut taxes and business regulations, tighten voter restrictions, privatize education, and hide the identities of political donors.” The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, an organization notoriously adverse to donor transparency, works closely with these SPN groups to oppose clean energy and climate policies. Joining these groups is the New England Convenience Store and Energy Marketers Association, a trade association representing some of the region’s gas stations, which is trying to preserve the region’s costly dependence on gasoline and diesel fuels by delaying the transition to a clean transportation future.

Misinformation Campaigns

All of these groups rely on scare tactics and disinformation campaigns to block climate action and slow investment in clean transportation. From a stubborn reliance on long-debunked, inflated cost projections (hint: anyone still citing the Tufts CSPA study, whose author acknowledged its inaccuracies, or its 38 cents/gallon price tag is resorting to willful misinformation for lack of better arguments) to a dogmatic refusal to acknowledge TCI-P’s public health, economic, and transportation benefits, these opponents rarely address the details of the actual program that the states are planning to implement.

Offering No Solutions

Perhaps most frustratingly, the opposition offers no solutions to the climate crisis, to our underfunded and outdated transportation infrastructure, or to the devastating public health impacts from tailpipe pollution. Rather than addressing avoidable deaths from local tailpipe pollution, creating better transit options, reducing traffic, and investing in transportation infrastructure, they ask residents to be content with the status quo, point fingers at other states, hope to be rescued by the federal government, and demand inaction from state policy makers. Unfortunately, too many state legislators have been willing to oblige while parroting the opposition’s misinformation.

What’s Next for TCI-P?

Clean air, new jobs, and better transportation options are still within our grasp. The governors of all three southern New England states are supporting the TCI program; now it is the legislatures’ responsibility to act, not only to authorize TCI-P participation, but to codify provisions to ensure the program prioritizes the needs of overburdened and underserved communities across the region.

In Connecticut, the legislature must pass TCI-P legislation through a special session this fall that enables participation in the program and establishes important equity and environmental justice provisions.

In Rhode Island, the Senate passed TCI-P legislation in 2021, but the full legislature will need to move the bill forward in 2022 to enable participation.

In Massachusetts, the legislature has already granted the Governor authority to implement TCI-P, and new legislation has been filed that would strengthen existing provisions to benefit overburdened and underserved communities.

Through the passage of these important bills, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island will be advancing meaningful action to address climate change and help every community thrive.

For More Information:

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

State Legislatures 101: A Comparison of Northeast States

Anyone who follows politics is familiar with the national Congress, and the various dramas and frustrations of passing laws at the national level. Yet many of us are not familiar with how our own state legislature operates, even though it passes laws that affect every aspect of local life. In our federal system, each state has wide latitude to create its own procedures. Despite a shared history and some of the oldest legislatures of the United States (legacies of the original British colonies), each New England state has its own unique quirks.

Massachusetts

Massachusetts is unique among New England states for having the only full-time legislature in the region. This session is the 192^nd “General Court” of the legislature – the term “General Court” grew out of the original Massachusetts Bay Colony General Court of 1629, when leaders met to pass laws and also decide legal cases. Unlike the national Congress, where Senators and Representatives serve longer terms of different lengths, legislative sessions in Massachusetts are two years for all legislators. There are no term limits except for certain positions, such as Speaker of the House. According to our Massachusetts state lead Kyle Murray, who worked for 9 years in the office of Senator Pacheco, this is intended to help retain institutional knowledge, as term limits and frequent turnover could eliminate experienced legislators. The first year of the session is largely dedicated to hearings, and most bills are passed in the second year of the session, often in a flurry of activity on the last few days.

Connecticut

Connecticut’s legislators also serve 2-year terms, but unlike Massachusetts, the legislature is in session for only half the year. Sessions are held from January to June in odd-numbered years, and from February to May in even-numbered years. According to Connecticut state lead Amy McLean, this part-term legislative schedule is a vestige of the early days of the Connecticut colony, when most members were directly involved in agriculture and were only able to be away from their farms during the winter and early spring. Although legislators are technically part-time, they are contacted by constituents year-round. As Amy says, being an elected official in the Connecticut legislature is really a “full-time job with part-time pay.” During the summer and fall, Acadia Center and other advocates prepare intensively for the next session that begins in the winter by meeting with legislators, hammering out coalition priorities and strategizing which bills to introduce in the next session.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s calendar is very similar to Connecticut’s: a six-month session starting in January each year, with the occasional special session to deal with urgent issues. As a part-time legislature the Rhode Island General Assembly conducts most official business in the evenings, enabling legislators to also hold jobs during the day. However, as with any political position, the work of a legislator extends well beyond hearings and votes and requires engagement with citizens and advocates (like Acadia Center) on a year-round basis.

The passage of bills through the General Assembly is complex: unlike the Joint Committee structure of most legislatures, House and Senate committees in Rhode Island function separately, which means two versions of each legislative proposal advance independently through each chamber. State lead Hank Webster works to coordinate policy development across both chambers, with Acadia Center’s priority bills often passing through the  Environment and Natural Resources Committee or Corporations Committee in the House, and the Environment and Agriculture Committee and Commerce Committee in the Senate.

Maine

Founded in 1832, the Maine legislature follows a 2-year schedule and is also in session only during the winter and spring months. In the Maine legislature, members of both Houses are elected for two-year terms and are limited to four consecutive terms.  During the first regular session, a legislator may submit legislation on any topic. In the second year, the Constitution of Maine limits bills to those proposed by the Governor, emergency, directed-study, and direct initiative bills.

A part-time legislative system, (also known as a traditional or citizen legislature) leads to a different profile of legislators than in states with a full-time system. Having a job separate from being a legislator can be helpful in terms of grounding legislators in real-world issues. According to our Maine state lead Jeff Marks, the Maine legislature is very diverse in terms of occupations, from fishermen to small business owners to lawyers, as well as retirees with a range of experiences. As with other states, the part-time structure limits who can be a legislator, because people who have full-time, year-round jobs or who cannot support themselves on a part-time salary may choose not to be legislators.

Why Northeast States Must Center Equity To Achieve Climate Goals

Most Northeast states have passed laws and stipulated goals to reduce emissions and transition to clean energy in the fast-approaching decades. Putting in place goals for climate action is only a first step, as the actualization of those goals rest largely on effective implementation strategies and actions that follow. These strategies will bring the needed change only if they work for all communities, especially disadvantaged communities: those of low-income with history of environmental injustice. Substantial efforts are needed in research, engagement, and better understanding of communities in order for this work to benefit all.

While the overarching goal is to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG), the progress towards this end depends on how tailored the approaches are to each community across the region. For example, while emissions from buildings and transportation are a major source of GHGs, only through consideration of the infrastructure in a location can we identify the best action that suits the specific neighborhood, community, or state.  Acadia Center recognizes this hindrance to states reaching their climate goals, and so has continued to press for programs that center on equity. For example, the Next Generation Energy Efficiency program is designed to help states reach climate goals by weatherizing and upgrading neglected buildings to make them more efficient, in ways that are tailored to the needs of people who have not been reached by other efficiency programs.

Prioritizing Equity and Environmental Justice Fulfills Climate Goals

Environmental justice communities constitute a large population in the Northeast. Massachusetts is one of the few states that have robustly defined and mapped out environmental justice communities. Spearheaded by state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), Massachusetts has provided an unambiguous definition to EJ populations as communities that meets one of following criteria: “(1) an annual median household income that is not more than 65 percent of the statewide annual median household income; (2) has minorities comprising of 40 percent or more of the population; (3) has 25 percent or more of the household lacking English Language proficiency; or (4) has minorities that comprise 25 percent or more of the population and the annual median household income of the municipality in which the neighborhood is situated does not exceed 150 percent of the statewide annual median household income.”  Understanding the needs of diverse neighborhoods in the region will help states to create appropriate programs and climate action plans suited to the needs of individual communities, aiding them as they make provisions that protect these communities.

Additionally, awareness of the needs and concerns of environmental justice communities and low-income groups who suffer the biggest impacts from pollution and climate change should not be limited to environmental advocates and climate action groups. Equity-centered perspectives must form the fabric of climate strategies and solutions and decisions made at all levels of government. LD1682, which Acadia Center helped pass in Maine, will require that state agencies incorporate equity considerations and perspectives in their decisions.

By seeking out and amplifying the voices of EJ community leaders and advocates, as well as other major stakeholder groups and organizations whose efforts are channeled towards climate and clean energy goals, real climate progress can be made. State and national councils on climate solutions must seek to include and highlight the perspectives of leaders from groups that have been continuously left out. Reducing emissions, tackling climate change, and ensuring thriving communities within the next few decades can only be achieved from goals and implementation strategies that address the complex and systemic issues of pollution, environmental injustice, and climate.

The Massachusetts Commission on Clean Heat: A Priceless Opportunity

On Monday, Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) announced that it had convened a new Commission on Clean Heat, the first body of its kind in the nation. According to Governor Charlie Baker’s office, this committee of stakeholders will work to “establish a framework for a long-term decline in emissions from heating fuels.” Acadia Center applauds the Commonwealth for undertaking this important work and underscores the need for this Commission to take its role seriously—Massachusetts cannot meet its climate commitments without eliminating emissions from buildings.

Buildings account for one third of Massachusetts’ greenhouse gas emissions. Federal data[1] and Acadia Center analysis show that space heating and water heating currently account for 70% of residential emissions and about half of commercial building emissions. Tackling these sources of emissions is absolutely crucial to achieving the Commonwealth’s net zero target for 2050.

This chart demonstrates that emissions from burning natural gas for space heating in buildings surpassed emissions from burning oil for heating around 2002. Massachusetts is on track for 88% of its heating emissions to come from burning natural gas by 2030.

However, many of the policy details are still to be determined. For a complex, multi-sector topic like heating, the devil is in the details.

Our Over-reliance On Gas

Economy-wide emissions have declined by about 23% in Massachusetts since 1990. Yet emissions from buildings have remained mostly flat. A closer look at the data tells us why: while the use of oil has declined markedly, it has been replaced by another fossil fuel: natural gas. In addition to those that have converted from oil to gas, more than 90% of new housing units in the Northeast are built with gas-fired equipment.[2] As a result, the Commonwealth is on track for natural gas to represent more than 70%—and potentially up to 90%—of its space heating emissions by 2030.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel that emits carbon dioxide when burned. It also consists mostly of methane, itself a greenhouse gas that is 86 times as potent as CO2.[3] It will be impossible for the Commonwealth to continue its reliance on natural gas and still meet its climate targets.

Designing The Cap

Because natural gas already figures so prominently in meeting the heating needs of homes and businesses in Massachusetts, the Commonwealth’s proposed heating fuel emissions cap[4] must be designed in a way that does not encourage more oil-to-gas fuel switching. Converting homes from oil to gas achieves a tiny short-term emissions reduction, but locks in decades of unnecessary emissions in the long run. It also locks consumers into using a fuel that faces volatile price fluctuations[5] and can be damaging to their health.[6]

The cost of electrification—i.e. the cost difference between electrification and business-as-usual fossil fuel equipment, plus the cost of new electricity supply—is lower than the cost of emissions to society, and significantly lower than the cost of abating the same amount of CO2 using biogas (RNG).

BE = beneficial electrification
Wx = weatherization
ASHP = air-source heat pump
Average = a home with average building shell efficiency
Drafty = a home with poor building shell efficiency

Using clean, efficient heat pumps to satisfy the Commonwealth’s heating needs is, as the 2050 Roadmap acknowledges, the most cost-effective and the easiest-to-deploy strategy for decarbonizing buildings.[7] In fact, Acadia Center analysis shows that gas-to-heat-pump conversions are cheaper for society than doing nothing: per ton of carbon abated, the cost of whole-home electrification in a gas-heated home is less than the cost of future property and infrastructure damage due to the impacts of climate change—a metric known as the “social cost of carbon.”

Electrification Is The Answer

Energy bill and emissions impacts can vary widely between buildings, depending on their location and their building shell efficiency. Regardless of these variations, whole-building electrification reduces emissions substantially and, in many cases, reduces annual energy costs as well. Combining properly-installed heat pumps with common-sense weatherization measures like insulation and air sealing can reduce bills even further while improving comfort and health.

The Mass Save 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan is set to “fundamentally transform”[8] programs to accommodate more building electrification, better equity outcomes, and more investment in workforce development. As a result, robust financial assistance will hopefully be available to any home or business owner who chooses to convert to heat pumps.

Conclusion

The Commission on Clean Heat is the Commonwealth’s best chance to meaningfully address its worsening overreliance on natural gas. It is essential that the Commission seize this priceless opportunity. State agencies, Massachusetts residents, contractors, and industry actors must come together around policies that dramatically reduce emissions from buildings while improving equity and health outcomes. Acadia Center is looking forward to working with Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and the members of the Commission to promote policies and programs that achieve these goals.

Footnotes

[1] U.S. Energy Information Administration. Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) and Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). RECS: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/ ; CBECS: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/

[2] HUD Survey of Construction (SOC): Annual Characteristics of New Housing. The median percentage of all housing units built in the Northeast between 2015 and 2020 that heat with gas is 92%. Data files are available at https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/

[3] IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), 2014. Summary: https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential-Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf

[4] Massachusetts Interim Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2030. December 30, 2020. Page 29. https://www.mass.gov/doc/interim-clean-energy-and-climate-plan-for-2030-december-30-2020/download

[5] Knoema Commodities Data Hub. See: Natural Gas Henry Hub Spot Price, Annual & Monthly; U.S. Natural Gas Futures Closing Price, Daily; EIA Long-Term Natural Gas Price Projection, Henry Hub. https://knoema.com/infographics/ncszerf/natural-gas-price-forecast-2021-2022-and-long-term-to-2050

[6] Jonathan J. Buonocore et al. “A decade of the U.S. energy mix transitioning away from coal: historical reconstruction of the reductions in the public health burden of energy.” Environmental Research Letters: Volume 16, Number 5. May 2021. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abe74c

[7] Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap. December 2020. Page 22. https://www.mass.gov/doc/ma-2050-decarbonization-roadmap/download

[8] Mass Save Program Administrators. “PA Update on 2022-2024 Three Year Plan.” Presented to the Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council on September 22, 2021. https://ma-eeac.org/wp-content/uploads/9.22.21-EEAC-3YP-Presenation_FINAL.pdf