A Clean Energy Future for Rhode Island

Acadia Center’s Goals in Rhode Island

Rhode Island offers a unique opportunity for clean energy action. With its small geographic size, high population density, and a single utility serving nearly all the state’s energy customers, Rhode Island is a model venue for the equitable, clean energy vision central to Acadia Center’s work. Known in history as the birthplace of the American industrial revolution, Rhode Island is poised, once again, to become a center for innovation and the birthplace of a clean energy revolution. Rhode Island is also particularly vulnerable to the worst effects of climate change given its 400 miles of shoreline and low-lying topography. Rhode Island has set a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, but Acadia Center is pushing the state towards even more ambitious and meaningful targets through the Act on Climate 2021 bill (S. 78 / H. 5445), which aims for net-zero in 2050, and includes transparency, equity, and accountability provisions.

Landscape

Acadia Center played a significant role in some recent victories for clean energy in Rhode Island, including the following:

• 2017: Governor Raimondo announces a commitment to increase Rhode Island’s clean energy production 10-fold by 2020, moving from 100MW to 1000 MW.
• 2019: Regulators approve the 400MW Revolution Wind offshore wind contract.
• 2020: Rhode Island commits to generating 100% of its electricity from clean energy by 2030.

Yet Rhode Island still faces many hurdles to clean energy development, including some of the following:

• Low-income households and communities of color in Rhode Island are most affected by outdated systems, and climate-warming pollution, are often the last to benefit from solutions.
• Periodic efforts to terminate energy efficiency programs thwart additional progress.
• The state’s utility regulations do not appropriately weigh the health, economic, and environmental benefits of clean energy options against the risks of continued fossil fuel dependence.
• National Grid, the state’s monopoly utility, continues to push for natural gas expansion that is incompatible with the state meeting its current climate goals, much less the emissions reductions targets in line with the latest science.

Our Priority Issues

Acadia Center has built strong, lasting relationships with stakeholders throughout the Rhode Island climate community. Through these relationships and a holistic approach combining, data, advocacy and implementation, Acadia Center is well positioned to create change in Rhode Island.

Energy Efficiency: Rhode Island has been a leader in energy efficiency; since 2011, the state has scored within the top 5 states in the nation in energy efficiency, according to the yearly reports by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEE). Acadia Center is proud of its role shaping the efficiency policies that led to this ranking and advancing the creation of a stakeholder energy efficiency council.  We will continue to offer guidance and input to Rhode Island’s Energy Efficiency and Resource Management Council and press for heating electrification incentives to be included in energy efficiency programs, which will also help transition buildings away from fossil fuels.
Clean Power: Support additional procurements of large-scale renewables and work to align the regional grid operator with climate goals.
Transportation: Build upon Acadia Center’s leadership in the Rhode Island Mobility Innovation Working Group to help build a strategy for clean transportation policy.
Climate Planning: Ensure Rhode Island meets its goal to reduce GHG emissions 80% by 2050 through intermediate and specific targets, and work to pass the Rhode Island Act on Climate 2021 bill.
Utility Innovation: Reform the utility business model to put climate and consumers first and make sure the Public Utility Commission holds the utility accountable when exploring non-pipeline alternatives.
No Natural Gas: In addition to the work to switch to clean power sources, we continue to educate stakeholders and consumers about the dangers of natural gas. We will intervene where necessary to encourage options beyond new pipelines.

Spotlight on Aquidneck Island

Rhode Islanders on Aquidneck Island (Newport, Portsmouth, and Middletown) had a recent brush with danger in January 2019, when an operational failure of National Grid’s natural gas pipelines to Aquidneck Island forced a gas shutoff that left about 7,000 people in Newport County without heat in sub-freezing temperatures and forced them to evacuate their homes in the middle of the night.  Since the gas accident, Acadia Center has been engaged in the community, pushing back against the utility’s narrative and proposed solutions set. Acadia Center presented information to the town councils demonstrating weatherization and heating electrification are viable and preferred alternatives to building more gas infrastructure. Following this engagement, two of the three towns on Aquidneck Island supported moratoriums on natural gas pipelines, including new gas connections, instead choosing what are known as “non-infrastructure solutions” to eliminate the need for additional natural gas capacity on the island and encourage replacing gas with electricity.

Although we collectively managed to get National Grid to commit to planning non-pipeline alternatives and studying gas reliability, Acadia Center will be tracking developments to ensure that the work is being done. We will continue evaluating the options put on the table and advocating for the best possible scenario, as the utility still has no financial incentive to stop pushing for new pipelines.

Contact us:

Hank Webster, Staff Attorney and Rhode Island Director
hwebster@acadiacenter.org

For Media Inquiries:

Nancy Benben, Director of Communications and External Engagement
nbenben@acadiacenter.org
617.742.0054 ext. 104

The Missing Piece of State Climate Goals: Public Utilities Reform

Acadia Center is shaping reforms to the statutory mandates that guide state agencies in order to enable those agencies to be stronger partners in meeting climate goals. By reforming directives, state agencies will be better positioned to address the climate crisis and to make decisions that work for all communities, both now and in the future.

States have committed to significant economy-wide cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But despite these goals, states have not explicitly empowered the agencies that impact carbon emissions – such as Public Utilities Commissions (PUC) and Departments of Transportation – to prioritize climate, equity, and environmental justice, in their decision-making. To achieve our climate goals, government agencies should be empowered to prioritize climate change impacts and mitigation in their decisions.

The decisions that PUCs and other state agencies make in 2021 will create the building, transportation, and energy infrastructure of 2030, 2050, and beyond. But because of outdated mandates, agencies are limited in their ability to make decisions in line with state climate goals. Public Utility Commissions, for example, which regulate the rates and investment decisions of electric and gas utilities, are legislatively mandated to reduce the costs of energy, ensure reliable gas and electric service, and guarantee utilities the opportunity to earn a profit. PUCs cannot regulate utilities in alignment with state climate targets or make decisions that value reducing greenhouse gases.

The result of outdated mandates is that PUCs often fail to treat clean energy resources on a level playing field as fossil fuels, furthering a dependence on energy sources that are exacerbating the climate crisis and leading PUCs to undervalue the future costs and climate impacts of energy investments that lean heavily on fossil fuels.

Other state agencies make many decisions with long-term climate ramifications, including establishing building codes, setting land use policy, and approving transportation projects such as new highways and road construction. Without taking long-term climate risks into consideration, these types of decisions could reinforce existing systems and products that rely on carbon emissions and fail to make the changes that will be necessary as we transition to a more resilient, zero-carbon economy.

By updating agency mandates, we can allow regulators and other policymakers to make decisions that support greenhouse gas reductions and consider climate change impacts. This would minimize long-term costs from climate change that now fall outside the scope of the core responsibilities of many state agencies.

To put these reforms into action, Acadia Center is working with other organizations, such as the Environmental Priorities Coalition in Maine, to support legislation for reforming PUC and state agency mandates in order to put climate and energy justice front and center and to ensure that all agencies are committed to helping states reach their emissions reduction targets.

Progress is already underway in the Northeast. In Massachusetts, Bill S.9, the major climate bill that is back on Gov. Baker’s desk after his initial veto in January, adds greenhouse gas reductions and equity as core responsibilities for the Department of Public Utilities.

In Maine, state representatives will soon introduce a bill that Acadia Center spearheaded to add climate and equity responsibilities to the PUC’s mandate and to task other state agencies to align their decision-making with the state’s climate laws.

And in Connecticut, Acadia Center has put together a factsheet describing opportunities to reform the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) and other state agencies, including amending the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act and modifying PURA’s statutory mandate directly.

Winter 2021 in Massachusetts – All Climate, All the Time

As the sun set on the last days of 2020, Massachusetts’ Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) published two key documents – the MA 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap report (plus its 6 technical appendices), which evaluated 8 different pathways towards more than 85% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) by 2050, and the Interim Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2030, (“CECP”), which detailed the actions and policies that the Commonwealth proposed to employ to cut economy-wide GHG emissions by 45% from 1990 levels by 2030.  Acadia Center has been hard at work reviewing the 2050 Roadmap, including determining what the “end dates” may be for the use of fossil fuels in Massachusetts, and is leading a coalition in writing comments on the CECP.

Less than a week after EEA released these long-awaited documents, the Massachusetts climate bill – legislation that Acadia Center and its partners had supported through the Senate, House, and conference committee process throughout 2020 – emerged from committee and passed both bodies in the waning hours of the 2019-2020 legislative session. The bill (S.2995) called for a net zero stretch code, 50% cuts in GHGs by 2030, reforms to the enabling statute of the Department of Public Utilities, and requirements that the energy efficiency plans achieve a GHG reductions goal and include the value of GHG reductions in cost-effectiveness calculations – three reforms at the heart of Acadia Center’s Next Generation Energy Efficiency strategy.

Governor Baker vetoed the bill on January 14^th, citing, among other reasons, the expense of a net zero stretch code and a $6B incremental cost to achieve 50% emissions reductions by 2030, instead of the 45% planned for in the administration’s CECP.

Acadia Center debunked the Governor’s primary cited reasons for his initial veto in two blog posts. One demonstrated that a net zero stretch code is both a key provision of the administration’s own Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2030 and an attainable threshold that many builders in Massachusetts are already meeting at little additional cost. The other concluded that the $6B price tag cited by Governor Baker as the additional cost of achieving S.2995’s requirement of 50% cuts in emissions by 2030, versus 45% in the Clean Energy and Climate Plan was likely off by orders of magnitude, based on the 2050 Roadmap.

The timing of the veto as one legislative session ended and another began made it impossible for the legislature to override the Governor’s veto.  With the overwhelming support for the landmark bill, House and Senate leadership refiled an identical bill, S.9, which passed on January 28^th with veto-proof margins. As one of the co-chairs of the Alliance for Clean Energy Solutions (ACES), Acadia Center brought together over twenty clean energy businesses and advocacy organizations to sign on to a letter urging Governor Baker to sign the bill and empower Massachusetts to address the climate crisis – as well as another letter thanking legislative leadership for quickly passing S.9.

Governor Baker’s second veto took the form of an amended version the bill, S.13.  As of this publication, the legislature is still considering whether to adopt the proposed changes or override the veto directly. Acadia Center has been engaged in conversations with legislative leadership about positive changes requested by the Governor that strengthen environmental justice provisions and stringency of the base building code, and encouraging the legislature to reject other changes, such as making the “floor” levels for 2030 and 2040 interim greenhouse gas emissions limits into “ceilings” and preventing future administrations’ abilities to reduce greenhouse gas pollution faster.

Why Acadia Center wants to see the Climate Bill become law:

As written, S.9 will put into law the commitments made by the Baker Administration’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2030 and beyond, setting Massachusetts on a path to reach net-zero emissions and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. It represents a sea change in Massachusetts’ approach to climate change. While current law enables climate targets to be seen simply as an aspirational goal that feels good, this legislation would require the state to make a real commitment and plan to reach net zero by 2050. It also:

• Includes vitally important provisions ensuring that front line communities and low-wage workers will benefit from the Commonwealth’s transition to a low-carbon economy;
• Gives the Department of Public Utility (DPU) the authority it needs to consider equity and climate in its decisions;
• Requires interim targets and all sectors of the economy to strive towards emissions reductions;
• Puts in place real protections for environmental justice communities; and
• Makes the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) a true tool to add significant renewable power on the system.

These are just a few of the benefits, and why Acadia Center is advocating so strongly for this bill.

Image credit: Office of Governor Baker on Flickr

Weatherization: The Little Climate Action that Could

New England is full of drafty houses. Regionally, almost a third of housing units were built before 1940, and more than half were built before the 1970’s, when the first building energy codes were adopted. Anyone who lives in such a house knows how uncomfortable it can be, on a February day, to feel the cold outside air seeping in through cracks around the windows and under the baseboard.

Less well-known is just how much these drafts contribute to the region’s greenhouse gas emissions. Acadia Center analysis shows that heating equipment in the draftiest houses can emit more than six times the CO2 of the same size house built to the current building code.

Not only is it possible to increase comfort and reduce energy bills in these drafty homes while also slashing emissions—it’s easy. Tens of thousands of New England homes undergo weatherization treatment through energy efficiency programs every year.

How does weatherization work?

Imagine poking holes in the bottom of a plastic cup and holding it under the tap. The larger the holes, the faster the water needs to come out of the tap to keep the cup full. Heating your home is like that: the cup is your house, the water is heat energy, the tap is your heating equipment, and the holes are—well, holes. Tiny cracks all around the house can let in cold air from the outside, while gaps in insulation allow heat to move faster through walls, ceilings, and floors. In the summer, heat and humidity can sneak in just as fast as they sneak out in the winter.

Weatherization is a way to slow the movement of heat by sealing up cracks and adding or improving insulation. Blocking the pathways that heat uses to escape your house means that heating and air conditioning equipment doesn’t need to work as hard, which saves money and avoids emissions.

Wait, I don’t see any cracks.

Like water, heat can move through spaces that are hard to spot. Window frames, door thresholds, fireplaces, switch plates, duct supply and return grilles, recessed light fixtures, attic hatches, and the joists that sit atop foundation walls are all common sites for air leakage. Homes settle over time, which unavoidably creates small cracks in all manner of locations.

Yikes! What can I do about that?

There’s an energy efficiency program in every Northeast state that will cover a big part of the cost of weatherization. These programs are designed to make it easier for homes and businesses to be more energy efficient, which benefits everyone. Weatherization work is often completely free for income-eligible households. Here is a list of programs by state:

Is there anything I can do myself?

Hiring a weatherization contractor will save you the most money, but some weatherization measures are easy enough for homeowners to do on their own. For example, V-seal weather stripping can be applied to the tracks of double-hung windows or sliding doors. Foam tubing on exterior door thresholds is also effective and easy to install. Caulking can be useful for larger gaps around baseboard molding and in the framing around windows and doors. Some caulking products dry clear, making the seal invisible. Others are white but can be painted.

Other types of air sealing projects are better completed by a professional. These include any work done on or near something hot—the vent for a furnace or clothes dryer, for example. Some projects are also just too onerous for building owners to do by themselves. While it may be technically possible to seal and insulate an entire attic as a DIY project, it is perhaps not advisable—for safety reasons, because of the effort involved, and because small mistakes can affect the success of the project.

Why would I insulate my attic?

While air sealing stops the movement of warm air through cracks, insulation stops the movement of heat through building components. Older homes very often have little or no insulation.

Heat moves slower through insulation because it’s full of air pockets—that’s why six inches of pink fiberglass insulates better than a brick wall four feet thick. Aside from fiberglass, contractors also commonly insulate with blown-in cellulose. Made from ground-up newspaper treated with a flame retardant, cellulose can often be inserted into wall cavities from the outside by temporarily removing a piece of siding, drilling a small hole, and then capping the hole when the insulating is complete.

Together, insulation and air sealing can improve the comfort of your home while cutting emissions. And because strong incentives are available no matter where in the Northeast you live, the work often pays itself off in bill savings in three years or less.

So this can save me money?

Weatherization is one of the best ways to save money on utility bills. For an older home, insulation and air sealing can reduce bills by more than 50% and emissions by 60% or more. If your heating bill in a cold winter month costs more than $250, look into weatherization.

PowerHouse and Building Electrification: Fact vs. Fiction

Nearly a third of greenhouse gas emissions in the Northeast come from buildings, and most of these emissions result from burning fossil fuels on-site for space heating, water heating, and cooking. Electrifying these end uses with clean, efficient electric equipment—like air- and ground-source heat pumps—is a necessary part of any realistic state climate policy.

Yet the fossil fuel industry and its allies have invested heavily in sowing doubt about electrification. Acadia Center’s PowerHouse home energy simulator counters this misinformation with a detailed analysis of the real costs and benefits of eliminating fossil fuel use in homes.

Information Gaps

PowerHouse is designed to fill a gap in analysis and information available to the public, enabling Acadia Center and its partners to provide credible data to rebut arguments made by the opponents of electrification. The simulator evaluates residential energy needs using ACCA Manual J algorithms and ten years of hourly weather data for eight locations around the Northeast. This allows for an analysis of operating costs, peak demand impacts, demand management potential, and net emissions that is both detailed and state-specific, rather than relying on regional or national averages.

A key capability of the PowerHouse tool is to quantify the compounding benefits of delivering whole-home electrification and weatherization as a package for a variety of residential building types. Weatherization measures like insulation and air sealing can dramatically reduce both the up-front and operating costs of electrification for most homes. PowerHouse puts a dollar value on these savings.

PowerHouse counters common misconceptions about electrification, including:

• MYTH: Heat pumps cost too much! The simulator demonstrates that whole-home electrification and weatherization leads to an overall cost reduction, which can be even more substantial in the drafty, old homes where marginalized communities often live.
• MYTH: Electrification won’t actually reduce emissions! As the model clearly demonstrates, whole-home electrification can immediately reduce emissions by more than half—an impact that grows each year as the grid adds more renewable resources.
• MYTH: Electrification will blow up the grid! Peak demand impacts are an important factor, but concern about the grid is overblown due to unreasonably pessimistic expectations about heat pump performance.
• MYTH: Heat pumps don’t work in the cold! Currently available cold-climate heat pump models can meet a home’s full heating needs in temperatures well below zero. Thousands are installed in the Northeast every year.

Equity and Justice

Low- and moderate-income households, communities of color, and English-isolated households in the Northeast are more likely to live in older, less efficient housing units. They are also more likely to be renters with very little control over their energy use decisions. Extending the benefits of energy efficiency and electrification to these households will require a concerted and meaningful commitment of resources—something that can be understood perfectly well without a home energy model.

However, PowerHouse can help to make the case for investing in marginalized communities by demonstrating the energy burden that these households suffer. A drafty, old house or apartment can cost six times as much to heat in the winter than a new unit of the same size built to the current building code. Providing clear, accurate numbers about energy burden for state decision-makers and other stakeholders can help bring the issue home for people who might never have dealt with energy bills like this themselves.

Grid impacts

Electric grid impacts are a common area of concern when it comes to heat pumps. Understanding the relationship between equipment performance, weather, and the peaks and troughs of electric demand is critically important to the overall project of building electrification.

PowerHouse closely parses this relationship, accounting for building shell characteristics, heat pump capacity, and input power for each hour of the year—granularity that is not possible with existing home energy modeling software. In this way, it can help to develop strategies for achieving building electrification at scale, for both new construction and retrofits.

Acadia Center’s PowerHouse home energy simulator meets fossil fuel industry misinformation with clear, fact-based analysis that proves the benefits of building electrification. By arming Acadia Center and its partners with this fine-grained analytical capability, the models will give advocates an advantage over the army of consultants working with oil and gas companies to irresponsibly prolong the use of fossil fuels.

The $6 Billion Question: Reality-Checking Baker’s Claimed Cost of Extra Climate Protection

In the flurry of activity at the end of 2020, two landmark (though long-expected) climate visions were put forward by different branches of the Massachusetts government. One, offered by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and backed up by its comprehensive draft Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2030, called for the state to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the year 2030 by 45% compared to 1990 emissions. The other, a bill passed with overwhelming legislative support entitled “An Act creating a next-generation roadmap for Massachusetts climate policy”, called for a 50% reduction by 2030, instead of 45%, among many other positive provisions. On January 14^th, Governor Baker vetoed the bill. But with the arrival of the 2021 session, the legislature passed the same bill again on January 28^th, which the Governor must sign or veto by February 7^th (although the large majorities in both bodies’ initial vote mean the legislature could override any veto).

Acadia Center has already debunked other claims in the Governor’s first veto. In his explanatory letter, the Governor claimed unlocking that extra 5% of GHG savings (the difference between 45% and 50%) would come with an extravagant cost: $6 billion more, to be exact. That figure, and how the Governor’s Office arrived at it, has touched off a number of conversations within the legislature and environmental advocacy community, because there has been little information revealed about where it came from.

Despite this, one can still infer valuable information from the Administration’s estimates for 2030. To explore this further, it is important to distinguish between an annual and a cumulative value. If, by 2030, Massachusetts reduced its annual emissions by 50%, the state would be emitting about 4.7 million metric tons[1] of GHGs less, annually, than if it only achieved a 45% reduction. Assuming those two reduction pathways gradually diverge between 2020 and 2030, that means – with a little help from high-school geometry – that the cumulative difference would be around 20-25 million metric tons. This is the triangular “wedge” of GHGs shown in the chart below, and this wedge, according to the Administration, is what costs $6 billion extra.

Now consider two important charts, included below, taken from December’s Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap reports, which contain the technical analyses that underpin policies set forth in the Clean Energy and Climate Plan, or CECP. These two charts show cost and emission differences between the study’s “All Options” scenario, which by 2030 attains GHG reductions of 47% compared to 1990[2], and its “Reference” scenario, which attains reductions closer to 15%. Reading the charts, it appears the “All Options” scenario cumulatively avoids about 150 million metric tons of GHGs and costs roughly $4.75 billion more than “Reference” by the year 2030.

To phrase it another way, the Roadmap analysis suggests that the average cost to get from 15% to 47% (and avoid about 150 million metric tons of emissions by 2030) is about $32 per metric ton avoided. This figure is also in line with a recent Applied Economics Clinic paper that explicitly calculated carbon “abatement costs” for Massachusetts. But the Baker Administration, in their justification for a more restrained 2030 target, says that to go from 45% to 50% could cost almost ten times that amount: $240-$300 per metric ton[3]. It is no surprise that bigger emissions cuts cost more, and costs per ton escalate as the least expensive options are exhausted first. Here, increased costs could mean that some polluting cars and fossil-fueled heating equipment would be replaced before they completely wear out. But the vast difference between these numbers, both of which come out of the same Administration within a few weeks of one another, suggest that different math is being used to tackle the same question.

Figure 5 from the Economic and Health Impacts Report, showing annual costs for modeled scenarios versus the “Reference” scenario. The area below the brown “All Options” line shows the cumulative cost difference for that scenario to be approximately $4.75 billion between 2020 and 2030.

Figure 46 in the Energy Pathways to Deep Decarbonization Report, showing cumulative emissions for the “All Options” and “Reference” scenarios. By 2030, the accumulated difference between the two would be 150 million metric tons.

A recent Boston Globe article by David Abel sheds some light on the Administration’s math, focusing on what it would take to stretch beyond the 45% target. For example, the article cites members of the Administration who say the Commonwealth would need 450,000 additional electric vehicles (EVs), which alone would cost $2.4 billion. That would mean over $5 thousand per car in extra costs. But what about the lower fuel and maintenance costs that EV owners enjoy? Even Consumer Reports acknowledges that the total cost of ownership for EVs is less than a car running on gasoline. And what about the other benefits to the public from breathing cleaner air with almost half a million fewer fossil-powered cars on the road? It appears that the Baker Administration’s math may not be accounting for all the benefits in the same way that the Decarbonization Roadmap does.

To be clear, achieving either of these 2030 aspirations, whether 45% or 50%, would be a significant milestone in Massachusetts’ fight against climate change. All other things being equal, fewer total emissions are better than more, since what really matters is the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. Acadia Center is a firm believer in evidence and data-backed policymaking, and the CECP is a tremendous accomplishment, founded on solid analysis. If the Baker Administration is going to use cost to explain why it opted for a less aggressive emissions target, Acadia Center simply feels that the same level of rigor should be brought to that decision as is seen in the Decarbonization Roadmap. Luckily, the bill containing the 50% goal is already back on the Governor’s desk. Acadia Center urges him to reevaluate his position – or at least base it on cost figures that are supported by evidence his own Administration has gathered.

Image credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/massgovernor/50881414713/

[1] This can be calculated from the annual GHG emissions inventory.

[2] This value lies in between 25% in 2020 and 90% in 2050, and Acadia Center understands that the “All Options” scenario follows this straight line emissions trajectory.

[3] This is Acadia Center’s estimate of the range of marginal abatement costs implied by the Baker Administration’s letter. It relies on approximate values estimated from charts and simple reasoning, since the complete information needed to perform the calculation has not been provided.

Next Generation Energy Efficiency

The buildings in which we live and work are a main driver of energy use and play a key role in determining public health outcomes. Emissions from appliances and heating and cooling systems negatively impact indoor air quality, exposing residents, especially in poorly ventilated buildings, to toxic pollutants. In New England and New York, building heating, cooling, lighting, and operations are responsible for over a third of the overall emissions that contribute to climate change.

Energy efficiency, including services ranging from home insulation improvements to replacing appliances with more efficient alternatives, can improve comfort, reduce exposure to pollutants, and save consumers money. Energy efficiency is also the most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and has played a major role in helping the Northeast lower carbon pollution.

The Northeast is a national leader in energy efficiency. Efficiency programs in the Northeast lead the nation in important criteria: the highest per capita investments in energy efficiency and the most ambitious energy savings goals. The regional grid operator in the six-state New England region relies on energy efficiency resources for over 14% of the power needs of the region – the highest in the country. Millions of homes and businesses have received efficiency services, which have reduced energy bills, avoided billions of dollars in higher cost energy resources, and improved public health.

Acadia Center is proud of the role it has played in advancing energy efficiency in the region and promoting the creation of stakeholder boards to guide efficiency programs, budgets and goals, but far more must be done to improve the efficiency of our homes and businesses and to ensure that all overburdened and underserved communities reap the full benefits of efficiency offerings.  Programs have not delivered services adequately across all income levels and communities. 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. There must be better alignment between state climate goals by reforming key energy efficiency policies, regulations, and stakeholder systems, and the region must continue to value energy efficiency as a core energy resource.

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.

The four challenges the Next Generation Energy Efficiency will prioritize are 1) sub-standard housing quality, 2) climate mitigation, 3) clean heating and whole-house electrification, and 4) sustaining investments in efficiency as the leading energy resource option for utilities and the power grid.

Prioritize Housing Quality Improvements

Energy efficiency must be at the center of addressing the region’s old housing stock. Energy efficiency can improve thermal comfort, reduce exposure to toxins, and lower energy costs. To better serve vulnerable populations and environmental justice communities, existing benefit-cost methodologies, which determine how efficiency programs are implemented, must incorporate climate, equity, and health benefits from building retrofits. Acadia Center will work with environmental and consumer advocates, environmental justice leaders, business interests, and efficiency vendors to develop policy recommendations that identify reforms needed to fully account for all the health, safety, and equity benefits that energy efficiency improvements deliver.

Ensure Alignment with Climate Mitigation

Every kilowatt-hour of electricity that does not need to be produced because of energy efficiency means less dirty fossil fuel use. But energy efficiency programs can achieve even deeper emissions savings if they are refocused with a greater emphasis on climate mitigation. Acadia Center will press to:

• Update efficiency statutes and regulations, including the way programs are screened through benefit-cost tests, to emphasize reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in addition to energy savings.
• Make certain that public utilities commissions consider climate and health impacts when evaluating efficiency programs; and
• Ensure that laws, regulations, and planning processes support efforts to transition from fossil fuels to clean electrification.

Embrace Clean Heating and Whole-House Electrification

If deployed together, energy efficiency and electrification can deliver greater emissions reductions while improving indoor air quality. To better align efficiency programs and electrification, Acadia Center will push for incentives for clean heating and weatherization, as well as for changes in how efficiency programs are administered to ensure co-delivery of building upgrades that are currently delivered in silos. Acadia Center will publish state-specific reports on the value of electrification and flexible demand and will push states to include electrification retrofit pathways in their efficiency plans.

Sustain Investments in Efficiency as the Leading Energy Resource

Northeast states must expand efficiency investment levels and energy savings goals to ensure deeper savings and benefits for all. As one of the fundamental components of meeting state emissions targets, efficiency efforts must be sustained in states that are already leading and improved in states that are falling behind. Acadia Center will work to ensure that decision-makers in the Northeast recognize the value and necessity of efficiency to spur large savings in public health and economic benefits. Through membership on efficiency boards and through PUC intervention related to efficiency plans, Acadia Center will continue to advocate for increased budgets and the maximum possible savings goals, provide expert commentary on state energy issues, and offer data and recommendations to counter bad decisions.

For more information:

Oliver Tully, Policy Strategist, otully@acadiacenter.org, (860) 246-7121, ext. 202

Massachusetts Climate Policy Roundup

In early January, the Massachusetts legislature overwhelmingly passed a landmark update to the state’s 2008 Global Warming Solutions Act through Bill S.2995, “An Act Creating a Next-Generation Roadmap for Massachusetts Climate Policy.” Many of the provisions have been championed by Acadia Center and we are encouraged by its breadth and specificity.  Bill S.2995 represents meaningful progress in addressing the Commonwealth’s contributions to climate change, codifying the Governor’s commitment to a net-zero future, delivering effective environmental justice strategies, and moving critical sector-specific initiatives forward. It will help increase overall demand for clean energy and support the growing clean energy economy.

Governor Baker employed the pocket veto on January 14^th.  The timing of the bill passage and the veto as one legislative session concluded and another began made it impossible for the legislature to override the Governor’s veto.  Demonstrating resolve and commitment to the overwhelming support for the landmark bill, House and Senate leadership refiled an identical bill, S.9, which is expected to come to a vote in the next week or so, and again pass quickly with veto-proof margins.

Significant provisions of the legislation include:

• “Comprehensive, clear and specific” plans for achieving statewide emissions limits now set every five years (rather than ten) leading to: 50% reductions from 1990 levels in 2030, 75% in 2040, and net-zero emissions by 2050.
• New tools and protections for environmental justice populations, and plans to improve or mitigate economic, environmental, and public health impacts for these populations.
• Mandates for emissions sub-limits for six priority sectors of the economy: transportation; electric power; residential heating and cooling; natural gas distribution and services; and natural and working lands, an idea catalyzed by Acadia Center.
• A requirement also endorsed by Acadia Center: The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) must consider equity and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions as equal priorities to reliability, safety, and affordability. This is essential to empowering the DPU to act in alignment with the state’s climate goals.
• Boosting the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard by 3% each year, ensuring that at least 40% of the state’s electric power will be renewable by 2030.
• An increase to the standard for greenhouse gas emissions for municipal lighting plants for the first time, requiring 50% non-emitting electricity by 2030 and “net zero” emissions by 2050.
• An expansion of previous targets that increases the state’s total offshore wind authorization to 5.6 gigawatts (GW).
• A local option mandates – “net zero stretch energy code” – which would allow towns to ban the use of fossil fuels in new buildings.
• The adoption of appliance efficiency standards in line with California; this may enable Massachusetts to take back the top spot in the rankings of American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
• A requirement that energy efficiency plans achieve a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goal and include the value of GHG reductions in cost-effectiveness calculations – two reforms at the heart of Acadia Center’s Next Generation Energy Efficiency strategy.

As one of the co-chairs of the ACES coalition, Acadia Center worked to pull together over 20 clean energy businesses and advocacy organizations to sign on to a letter urging Governor Baker to sign the bill and empower Massachusetts to address the climate crisis.

The climate roadmap envisioned in the newly filed S.9 will put into law the commitments made by the Baker Administration’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2030 and beyond, setting our Massachusetts on a path to reach net-zero emissions and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.  As well, Bill S.9 includes vitally important provisions ensuring that front line communities and low-wage workers will benefit from the Commonwealth’s transition to a low-carbon economy. Acadia Center strongly support S.9 and greatly appreciates the resolve of House Speaker Mariano, Senate President, Representative Golden and Senator Mike Barrett for quickly reintroducing the legislation.  Acadia Center looks forward to swift passage of this important climate legislation, and urges Governor Baker to enact without changes it so that all the state’s residents can benefit from a healthier, safer future.

Fact check: net-zero stretch code is the right move for Massachusetts

Yesterday, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker vetoed S. 2995, “An act creating a next-generation roadmap for Massachusetts climate policy.” As the Boston Globe reported earlier this week, and as the Governor’s letter to the legislature confirms, opposition from the real estate industry played a significant role in the decision.

The section of the bill that has drawn the ire of real estate groups has to do with the energy efficiency parts of the building code. Currently, Massachusetts has both a standard (or “base”) building energy code and a “stretch” code. The stretch code allows cities and towns to opt in to requirements for higher levels of energy efficiency in new buildings.

The bill would require the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) to strengthen the stretch code and to include a definition of “net-zero building.” Net-zero buildings either emit no greenhouse gases or generate enough renewable energy to offset the emissions they do cause. Although they sound like the far-off future, developers are building zero-energy buildings in Massachusetts right now at no extra cost.

Even so, real estate developers reportedly complained to the Governor that this part of the bill would be a burden. Their complaint is hard to understand. The bill’s approach is about as cautious and reasonable as one could expect, and here’s why:

The stretch code is optional. Cities and towns must opt-in to the current stretch code. To date, more than 80% of the Commonwealth’s municipalities have done so, ranging from urban Springfield to rural Colrain and suburban Rockland. An updated version of the code would be no different. Far from a hardship, the stretch code is a valuable tool which cities and towns use to reduce energy bills for their residents and businesses.

Flexibility is built into the stretch code. Today, Massachusetts’ stretch code is performance-based. This means that rather than dictating that different building components be built in a specific way, the stretch code requires a certain level of whole-building efficiency, which builders may achieve in whatever way they wish. Updating to a net-zero stretch code would entail higher levels of energy efficiency, but it would not alter this flexibility.

The Governor’s agencies would be in charge of developing the code. Notably, the bill does not define “net-zero building.” It assigns that task to the Governor’s own administration. Fortunately, the administration had already begun this work long before the final bill emerged: a recently-released draft of the state’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan (page 30) specifically proposes that the stretch code be updated in just the way that the bill proposes.

The bill provides for a gradual implementation timeline. The bill urges DOER to develop “a tiered implementation plan,” under which the revised code could be phased in over time and modulated to reflect different energy use characteristics between building types. The Governor’s administration would be empowered to make these decisions. And even under an aggressive timeline, years are likely to pass before a significant number of construction projects in the Commonwealth are built under the new code. The real estate industry’s depiction of the updated stretch code as sudden and onerous does not square with the facts.

Responsibility for the code would remain with the state. Campaigns to ban new gas hookups have gathered steam recently in several Massachusetts cities and towns. Real estate interests have opposed these common-sense climate measures as well, on the grounds that, since these ordinances would vary by town, they would add a layer of complexity to developers’ work. While Acadia Center agrees that the Commonwealth must rapidly wind down its use of gas if it expects to reach its climate targets, adopting a statewide net-zero stretch code would not create the labyrinthine landscape of different building codes that developers fear. It would simply update a building code pathway that has already existed in Massachusetts for years to include requirements that many builders in the state are already sticking to on their own.

In conclusion, the updated stretch energy code that S.2995 proposes is optional, flexible, efficient, and ultimately defined by the Governor’s own agencies. To find a more accommodating approach would be difficult indeed. Acadia Center thanks Speaker Mariano and Senate President Spilka for their intention to quickly pass the bill again and urges Governor Baker to sign it this time.

Maine Won’t Wait, A Four-Year Plan for Climate Action

On December 1, 2020, the Maine Climate Council released its report, “Maine Won’t Wait, A Four-Year Plan for Climate Action,” to Governor Janet Mills. The focus now turns to the governor and legislature to transition the Plan’s priorities and strategies into legislative and regulatory initiatives.

Not everyone thought it would be possible to build a consensus-driven, aggressive roadmap to addressing the relentless effects of climate change. In fact, in early 2020, the December 1 deadline for finalizing Maine’s Climate Action Plan seemed very far away. The enormity of Covid-19 was taking hold and many were struggling to care for their families, adjust to working remotely and Zoom calls, and balancing the immense stress and anxiety of this extraordinary time.  However, Governor Mills and her staff  assured the approximately 230 Council and Working Group Members, including Acadia Center, of how important our work was and that despite the coronavirus taking its toll on the health, welfare, and wallets of Mainers, the climate challenge wasn’t going away and a climate plan must be a top priority. Now we are ready to implement the Maine Climate Action Plan in a way that maximizes investment in renewable energy, efficient buildings, clean transportation, healthier communities, and our most vulnerable citizens, while driving a clean energy economic recovery.

The Climate Action Plan confronts the extreme impacts of climate change on Maine’s coastal communities, public health, fishing and marine industries, forests, and low-income and other vulnerable populations. Not all strategies are created equal, and the state of Maine will want to focus on those that deliver the biggest bang for their buck. This Plan represents the most significant and comprehensive effort to map out the actions that are needed to reduce climate pollution and create new jobs as part of the transition to a clean energy economy. It sets out strategies based on scientific assessments of the reduction levels needed to help protect our economy, people, and environment from severe impacts of climate change. The final Climate Action Plan includes substantial increases in electric vehicles and residential heat pumps, additional support for renewable energy projects, and assistance to improve community resilience. There are also strong recommendations to protect natural and working lands and forests across the state, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The Plan will not be successful without a robust political and financial commitment to implement its strategies. The federal government will also need to step up to support states like Maine in investing in clean energy, a modern transportation system, and resilient infrastructure. While the Plan has gaps, especially in its limited support of a regional Transportation & Climate Initiative (TCI) we believe this blueprint will lead to significantly lower greenhouse gas levels, and importantly, a diversity of opportunities for a diversity of Mainers. With a new federal administration coming into office in 2021 with a commitment to climate, state, regional and local work to advance a clean energy and transportation future, we are optimistic about the opportunities and vision Maine’s Climate Action Plan lays out.

There is no single silver bullet to address climate change. We need to attack it from multiple angles, try many approaches. Maine’s Climate Action Plan tackles this intractable challenge holistically and determinedly. With it, we will make the changes needed for a healthier planet and better lives for all Mainers.

Critical Elements of the Plan:

• Significantly expanding beneficial electrification for heating and transportation.
• Deploying high-speed broadband to 95% of Maine homes by 2025 and 99% by 2030.
• Increasing public transportation funding to the national median of $5 per capita by 2024.
• Increasing weatherization, especially for low-income and rural households.
• Phasing in modern, energy efficient building codes to reach net zero carbon emissions for new construction by 2035 and incorporate mass timber and wood-fiber insulation into new building structures.
• Leveraging additional procurements of clean energy supply with specific development targets for offshore wind, smaller distributed energy resources, and energy storage.
• Minimizing environmental and community impacts of renewable energy siting by focusing on early engagement with key stakeholders and the public.
• Initiating a power transformation stakeholder process to pursue utility innovation and grid modernization.
• Marrying Maine’s natural resources and cleantech workforce and innovation to create and maintain good-paying, sustainable jobs.
• Increasing investments in Maine forest conservation and carbon sequestration.

With the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic, the economy, and a transition to a more climate-friendly President, it is particularly critical now that the final Climate Action Plan spurs robust, sustainable, and equitable solutions for the economic, energy, and environmental benefit of all Mainers. Acadia Center will be working with partners and policymakers to pursue legislative, regulatory, and programmatic initiatives that mitigate emissions from buildings, electricity, and vehicles while ensuring that Maine’s most vulnerable and rural communities are not left behind in such challenging times.