A Statement on the Impact of the Election on Clean Energy and Climate Progress

To the Acadia Center Community,

Over the past few days, myself and the Acadia Center team, alongside the nation, have begun to process the vastly different political landscape we’ll be working in for the next four years. The severe threats a changing climate poses to our economic security, quality of life, and safety are not bound by political elections. Climate is science, and as we look to the future, Acadia Center is redoubled in its determination to reduce emissions, encourage clean energy, and prioritize public health.

The work Acadia Center does advocating for multi-state efforts to accelerate progress, working with diverse partners at the regional, state, and local levels, and implementing a clean, safe and economically prosperous climate future for all, will be one of the most important bulwarks to keep progress moving and minimize possible damage. States, regions, and cities have the ability– and responsibility – to strengthen their longstanding commitment to climate leadership in the next four years.

With the likely shift in the national approach to climate and energy, several trends have emerged, presenting both challenges and critical motivators for Acadia Center’s mission.

The scale of potential damage is large. Analysts from CarbonBrief report that a shift in administration could result in an additional 4 billion tons of U.S. emissions by 2030—equivalent to the combined annual emissions of the EU and Japan. This increase could cause global climate damages worth more than $900 billion, according to the latest U.S. government valuations.

The new administration could interfere with federal agencies like the EPA and NOAA. This would leave enormous gaps in the data we rely on to understand emissions trends and weather impacts. While it’s unclear how quickly this could unfold, Acadia Center remains vigilant in tracking these developments and the potential impact on our efforts.

The role of state, regional, and municipal climate action is indispensable. These jurisdictions have significant authority over key sectors and can enact policies that move the needle on emissions reductions. From regulating utilities to enforcing renewable energy standards and advancing clean transportation solutions, state and local leadership will be crucial in filling the gaps that may arise if national support falters. Acadia Center’s long-standing focus on empowering states and localities will be more important than ever.

Let us keep in mind that the clean energy future is happening. Clean energy markets are growing rapidly, driven by technological advances, cost competitiveness, and the increasing recognition of climate-related risks by the business community. In fact, renewables now comprise over 30% of U.S. utility-scale electrical generating capacity. Clean energy is building the jobs of the future, from brand new electric vehicle manufacturing plants, to battery storage, to training electricians in home installations. The economics alone should dictate that clean energy – from solar and batteries to EVs and transmission – should be an essential centerpiece of an energy abundance and energy security agenda – offering the most affordable, scalable, and resilient energy that our evolving economy needs. These developments provide a foundation of success as we look toward the future, underscoring the need for continued collaboration between industry, government, and civil society.

In the face of these challenges and opportunities, I am reminded that meaningful progress often requires resilience and cooperation. Acadia Center is here to drive these efforts.

For 25 years, Acadia Center has crafted ambitious but practical solutions, offered credible information, and shown how clean energy and climate action are the pathways to a healthier, more stable, and resilient economic future. Thank you for your continued support, and I look forward to the work ahead with purpose and determination.

Sincerely,

Dan Sosland

President, Acadia Center

Office of Energy Transformation Represents a Visionary Step Forward for Massachusetts

Navigating the phase-out of the sprawling natural gas system is a massive and complex undertaking, filled with thorny questions that could likely be the subject of years-long proceedings. To address this task (among other energy transition priorities), Massachusetts recently created the first-ever Office of Energy Transformation (OET), tasked with a duty “to accelerate the energy transformation, with a focus on gas-to-electric transition, electric grid readiness, and an affordable and just transition for workers, businesses, and communities.”  This office is intended to provide leadership in strategic planning, roadmap development, and stakeholder engagement to advance the transformation of the state’s energy system. Put simply, the OET is tasked with navigating those incredibly complicated questions that surround the transition, like how to decarbonize the peak and how to finance the transition. It will function as an invaluable connective tissue between the various branches of government and stakeholders.

A key component of the OET will be the Energy Transformation Advisory Board (ETAB), a board filled with a diverse cross-section of stakeholders that includes labor, environmental justice, utilities, building owners, finance, and others. This board will be crucial to guide and advise on the work of the OET. Acadia Center, which is a member of this board, recently attended the kick-off meeting for this board and was heartened by the impressive breadth of knowledge in the room and the resources that the Healey-Driscoll administration is devoting to the effort.

Work under the purview of the Office and ETAB will also be conducted in subgroups that focus on three priority issues. These issues are:

  • Transitioning Away from Reliance on the Everett Marine Terminal LNG Facility,
  • Decarbonizing the Peak, and
  • Establishing Alternative Mechanisms to Finance the Finance/Fund EDC Distribution System Infrastructure Upgrades

Acadia Center appreciates that the OET has chosen three exceptionally complex topics that are worthy of extended consideration and debate. The Everett Marine Terminal is one of the longest-operating LNG facilities in the United States, and its supposed purpose is to provide gas system stability on the coldest few days of the year or if the energy supply is disrupted. However, Acadia Center analysis has called into question how necessary this facility is, how fully alternative solutions have been explored, and how much its continued operations should cost ratepayers. Next, peaker plants are power plant facilities that only operate when there is significant demand on the electric system that cannot be met with normal supply. These are facilities that often only run for a few days every year. Unfortunately, they are also some of the most polluting facilities, spewing emissions into already overburdened communities. Figuring out how to retire these facilities through the use of creative solutions such as demand response and battery storage would be of incredible benefit to the Commonwealth. Finally, identifying how to fully finance the electric infrastructure needed as we rapidly electrify our transportation systems and buildings and decarbonize our electric supply remains an unsolved question. Currently, much of these costs are borne by ratepayers, through electric bills. However, in the long-term, that approach simply may not be sustainable for ratepayers at least under current rate design and cost recovery paradigms.  These three workstreams, while seemingly disparate, are closely tied together by nature of the fact that they span all sectors of the economy.

Next Steps

While it is still quite early in the process, Acadia Center is optimistic that this new office and its stakeholder engagement apparatus will be able to tackle the enormous task it has before it. As other states in the region navigate the difficult questions posed by phasing out fossil gas systems, they should look to Massachusetts as a model. Acadia Center believes that other states would benefit from setting up similar infrastructure to deal with these weighty questions.

Additionally, the OET should eventually broaden its subgroups to include other pressing concerns, such as an evaluation of the potential for stranded assets, reforms to performance-based ratemaking, or a reassessment of gas utility tariffs, policies, and practices on new and existing customer connections.

Energy Affordability, Rate Increases, and Regulatory Solutions in Connecticut

Ratepayers in Connecticut pay among the highest electricity rates in the country, and many low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents struggle to pay their energy bills. According to a 2023 report from Operation Fuel, which, among other services, provides emergency utility bill assistance to households across Connecticut, over 400,000 households in the state face unaffordable home energy costs.1 Energy burden—the percentage of household income spent on energy costs—is generally considered high when energy expenditures account for 6% of household income. Energy burden is severe when 10% or more is allocated to energy costs. Urban and rural households in Connecticut with an income of 0-30% of the state median income (SMI) experience a 19% energy burden on average. LMI households in Connecticut are currently paying hundreds of millions of dollars more for energy than they would if their energy burden was reduced to 6% of household income.

This past summer, Connecticut residents experienced two significant rate increases, including an $800 million increase for Eversource customers in July. The Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel (“OCC”) published a Frequently Asked Questions document2 that provides detailed, evidence-based information explaining what is behind the rate changes. 80% of the $800M rate increase was the result of expenses related to the Millstone nuclear power plant, expenses that the Connecticut state legislature—not the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (“PURA”)—voted to approve. The remaining 20% was set to recover the cost of unpaid electric bills during the state’s COVID-era moratorium on shutoffs. The shut-off moratorium was in place for four years for customers with a financial or medical hardship designation on their accounts, which are income-based or for people with life-threatening or serious medical conditions. The OCC shared that only half of the residents eligible for a financial hardship designation actually benefited from it. The second rate increase Connecticut residents experienced took place in September and stemmed cost recovery on programs such as the Innovative Energy Solutions program and the Connecticut Electric Vehicle Charging Program.

Unfortunately, these costs are categorized on utility bills under the label of Public Benefits Charges, a large catch-all category that helps to fund a wide range of beneficial programs for Connecticut ratepayers, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, and bill assistance programs. These programs provide significant benefits to Connecticut residents. Although these programs have been pointed to as the cause of the recent rate increase, they are not the true reason why rates have gone up. Because the Millstone plant costs and the COVID-related uncollectible expenses are included in Public Benefits Charges, opponents have unfairly attacked all Public Benefit Charges as harmful and overly expensive for Connecticut ratepayers. Moreover, Eversource requested recovery for the expenses over a 10-month period despite recommendations by stakeholders, including PURA Chair Marissa Gillett, to extend the cost recovery period to reduce the risk of near-term rate shock.

In light of the recent rate increases, energy burden and affordability are increasingly important issues for Connecticut to address. Energy equity and affordability means avoiding, mitigating, and remediating social, economic, and health burdens stemming from the energy system, while ensuring equitable participation in—and an opportunity to benefit from—the clean energy transition. As Connecticut moves to a decarbonized, increasingly electrified energy system, PURA should strengthen its focus on energy equity and justice in their proceedings, including through updates to the agency’s statutory mandate. To fully consider energy burden in the context of Connecticut’s clean energy transition, PURA should also holistically review and plan for the future of the state’s gas sector.

PURA, under the direction of Chairman Gillett, is already starting to make progress on this front. For example, PURA’s Performance-Based Regulation proceeding could help to create a new framework for regulating utilities that more explicitly centers equity and affordability, among other issues. PURA recently established a low-income discount rate which should be helpful for residents dealing with high energy burdens. PURA also established a Stakeholder Group Compensation Program3 to support underrepresented organizations who might have not had access or legal support to adequately participate in PURA proceedings.

To further strengthen Connecticut’s focus on energy justice and affordability, Acadia Center recommends the following additional activities:

1. Open an Energy Equity and Justice Proceeding: Despite PURA’s critical role and impact on environmental justice communities, accessibility of regulatory processes is limited. A dedicated Energy Equity and Justice Proceeding should be established to fully address these important, interrelated issues, which would include:

  1. Review and analysis of existing energy burdens;
  2. Consideration of contributing factors such as housing quality, pre-weatherization needs;
  3. Review of and improvements to income-eligible utility discount programs;
  4. Optimal rate design to promote affordability and electrification in LMI households; and
  5. Other avenues for operationalizing procedural, distributive, contextual, and corrective equity4 in PURA proceedings and other forums in Connecticut’s acceleration towards renewable energy in alignment with the Global Warming Solutions Act5 (“GWSA”).

2. Open a Proceeding on the Future of Gas and Affordable Heat: As Connecticut seeks to meet the emissions reductions targets of the GWSA. a Future of Gas and Affordable Heat considering the role of gas distribution companies should (1) examine the gas distribution industry and regulatory and policy changes needed to support the achievement of Connecticut’s mandated GHG emission limits; (2) implement lesson learned from other Future of Gas proceedings around the region, including but not limited to Massachusetts and Rhode Island, so as to promote regional consistency and minimize rework and inefficiencies for Connecticut; and (3) determine what near- and long-term adjustments are necessary to maintain a safe and reliable gas distribution system, minimize stranded costs, conduct joint electric- and gas-system planning, and protect consumer interests as the state transitions from fossil fuels to a clean, increasingly electrified, and decarbonized energy future by 2050.

3. Review and update PURA’s mandate to include emissions, equity, and environmental justice responsibilities: Legislators should amend PURA’s statutory mandate to include climate and equity responsibilities and add a requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the GWSA. PURA and other agencies should have a legislative mandate not only to do all that it can to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also to prioritize the reduction of greenhouse gases and other pollutants in environmental justice communities, as well as to alleviate disproportionate environmental burdens. These new responsibilities would allow for targeted reforms that are not considered today. Instead of choosing the cheapest solution in the moment, PURA can be empowered to choose the best solution for both today and tomorrow’s ratepayers.

Current and upcoming Dockets to watch:

  • Performance-Based Regulation Framework for the Electric Distribution Companies (Docket No. 21-05-15)
  • Equity, Accessibility, and Stakeholder engagement (Docket No. 24-09-07)

1 Mapping Household Cost Burdens: A Study of Energy, Transportation, Water, and Housing Affordability In Connecticut. By Justine Sears and Leslie Badger (VEIC), produced for Operation Fuel (2023). https://operationfuel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/VEIC-affordability-study-May-2023.pdf

2 Office of Consumer Counsel Frequently Asked Questions: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/occ/occ-ram-qa-final-09042024.pdf

3 PURA Stakeholder Compensation Program: https://portal.ct.gov/pura/public-participation/stakeholder-group-compensation-program#:~:text=The%20Stakeholder%20Group%20Compensation%20Program,cases%2C%20or%20small%20business%20customers.

4 ACEEE’s Energy Equity Topic Page: https://www.aceee.org/topic/energy-equity

5 An Act Concerning Connecticut Global Warming Solutions: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/act/pa/2008pa-00098-r00hb-05600-pa.htm

Moving Towards a Clean Energy Future: The Crucial Role of State and Local Leadership

With the federal election looming, Acadia Center has often been asked how a new administration might impact the fight for a sustainable and clean energy future. Over the past four years, huge strides have been made at the federal level thanks to efforts like the Inflation Reduction Act, which made unprecedented progress on a federal level towards the clean energy future we all strive for. Will a new federal administration halt all the progress that has been made?

Luckily, Acadia Center knows that real power for change also lies in the hands of state and local governments. The work at this level is vital, and only through state and local action can aggressive 2030 climate goals be met. Acadia Center plays a critical role in advocating for transformative change through state and regional legislation, consumer-focused climate advocacy, and coalition building.

The Steady Impact of Local and State Legislation

Local and state governments are often the most effective drivers of clean energy policy. State governments have a duty to respond to local conditions swiftly and accurately, and often have more legal authority than the federal government when it comes to implementing change within their district. This allows them to implement bold measures to reduce carbon emissions and promote renewable energy, regardless of the direction of federal policies.

Acadia Center understands that local action is key. By working directly with state lawmakers, it helps craft policies that not only protect the environment but also benefit consumers and spur economic growth. States like Massachusetts and New York have demonstrated that setting ambitious renewable energy targets and creating energy efficiency programs can serve both environmental and economic goals. These state-led efforts are critical for energy independence, and Acadia Center’s research and advocacy provide the data policymakers need to make informed decisions.

By focusing on state and local initiatives, Acadia Center ensures that policies are tailored to the specific needs of each region, creating more consumer-focused solutions that align with local conditions. This also allows communities across all socioeconomic levels to benefit, ensuring a just and equitable transition to clean energy.

Balancing Federal Leadership with Sub-National Action

While federal leadership plays a vital role in clean energy, state and local governments have increasingly shown that they have many of the necessary tools to push progress forward.. Pro-climate administrations at the federal level can provide critical funding and guidance, as we’ve seen under the current administration’s Inflation Reduction Act. This legislation empowers states by allocating significant funding for clean energy but leaves them in control of how those resources are spent, recognizing that local governments are best equipped to design policies that meet their unique needs.

However, even when federal leadership falters—as it did when the previous administration pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement—states continued to meet emissions reduction targets. By sticking to the climate goals set out by international agreements, many states have not only maintained momentum but have also served as a counterbalance to regressive federal policies. The steady, consumer-focused work of states during such times shows how essential sub-national governments are in driving the clean energy transition.

Climate Advocacy: Mobilizing Communities and Supporting Local Action

Effective climate action begins with the community, and grassroots advocacy plays a pivotal role in influencing policy. Acadia Center’s climate advocacy efforts help amplify community voices, mobilizing public pressure to prioritize environmental issues. This community-based approach highlights the urgency of local action in response to the specific impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels and extreme weather events that disproportionately affect the Northeast.

By tailoring climate solutions to the unique challenges of individual states, Acadia Center helps foster a sense of ownership among local communities. Residents become active participants in the transition to clean energy, making climate policies not only more effective but also more sustainable.

Coalition Building: Strengthening Local Initiatives

Coalition building is one of the most powerful tools in advancing clean energy initiatives. By forming alliances with like-minded organizations, businesses, and community groups, Acadia Center has amplified the effectiveness of state and local policies. These coalitions serve as a unified front against entrenched interests, providing strength in numbers to push for systemic change.

At the state and regional levels, where competing interests often make energy policy complex, Acadia Center’s ability to facilitate dialogue and consensus-building ensures that clean energy initiatives remain resilient and adaptable. This collaborative, inclusive approach strengthens the long-term sustainability of clean energy efforts, ensuring they endure political and economic shifts.

Local and Regional Actions Lead the Way

Real momentum for clean energy often comes from local and state actions. Sub-national governments have shown that by prioritizing innovation and community engagement, they can lead the transition to a low-carbon economy. Programs like utility rate design, energy efficiency initiatives, and cap-and-trade agreements such as RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) have proven highly effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting clean technologies.

The flexibility of state-level actions allows for a diversity of solutions that match local conditions and needs. This bottom-up approach to clean energy policy accelerates progress and provides a model for other regions to follow.

Conclusion

State and local leadership is essential in the fight against climate change. By advancing consumer-focused policies, fostering coalitions, and acting steadily even when federal leadership is absent, sub-national governments continue to lead the way toward a clean energy future.

When it comes to the 2024 election, if the administration that is elected is hostile to clean energy efforts, the need for states to step up to meet ambitious climate goals will be greater than ever. Acadia Center remain a key player in this movement, ensuring that state and local actions are not only bold but also equitable and effective. In this scenario, the collective work of state and local governments will be critical in achieving a sustainable and resilient energy system that benefits both current and future generations.

If an administration who understands the importance of the climate goals we’ve set in place is elected, they will serve as an effective partner for state and local action. Acadia Center will continue to partner with both federal and local governments in the case, advocating for clean energy solutions that benefit all.

The path forward lies in empowering local communities, supporting innovative and consumer-focused policies, and ensuring that state and local leaders continue to advocate for transformative change.

Massachusetts DPU Approves Electric Sector Modernization Plans

On August 28, 2024, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) issued its final Order in the Electric Sector Modernization Plans (ESMP) proceeding (DPU 24-10, 24-11, 24-12), marking a major milestone in the ongoing efforts to modernize the state’s electric grid.

The ESMPs are the utilities’ plans to proactively upgrade Massachusetts’ distribution system to improve reliability and resiliency in the face of increasingly severe climate change impacts. The ESMPs are also a roadmap for how the state’s utilities will prepare the grid for broad deployment of distributed energy resources and help facilitate the electrification of our buildings and transportation sectors.

The DPU has now approved an ESMP for each of the three investor-owned utilities in the state. This is the culmination of many years of work from many different stakeholders, not only since the passage of the Act Driving Clean Energy and Offshore Wind (2022) that required the ESMPs, but also from the previous years of work on grid modernization that has taken place in Massachusetts. Acadia Center is an executive member of the Grid Modernization Advisory Council (GMAC), which was set up alongside the ESMP process to guide the development of the plans and provide input and recommendations before the plans were submitted to the DPU. Acadia Center served as a member of the GMAC, as well as the GMAC Equity Working Group.

Over the course of the first five-year term, the utilities plan to spend billions of dollars across a range of activities to upgrade the distribution grid and enable a cleaner and more flexible system, all of which will result in billions of dollars’ worth of benefits for customers and the state. For example, the utilities plan to invest in infrastructure to support the deployment of advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), electric vehicles, virtual power plants (VPPs), and distributed energy resources (DER) such as rooftop solar and battery storage; network and communications upgrades to optimize the use of distributed energy resources; and grid hardening, automation, and other resiliency measures, among many other investments.

The ESMPs are strategic five-year plans to guide future proposals that the utilities will then submit to the DPU for approval. By issuing its Order, the DPU has approved the plans but has not guaranteed approval or cost recovery for any specific project, which will have to go through more detailed assessment in the future.

Here are some key highlights from the Order:

  • The DPU directs the utilities to establish a long-term stakeholder planning process (LTSPP). The LTSPP will start as a six-month process, beginning in October 2024, and will consider a range of issues, including how best to enable distributed generation hosting capacity in specific locations and the role of flexible interconnection in avoiding the need for system upgrades.
  • The Order builds on the DPU’s groundbreaking 2023 Future of Gas decision (20-80-B), which required Integrated Energy Planning (IEP) to better coordinate electric and gas system planning efforts. The DPU now provides more detail on how the IEP process will be developed and how the utilities will work with stakeholders to establish a Joint Utility Planning Working Group.
  • The utilities and other stakeholders are directed to develop a statewide community engagement framework to improve stakeholder engagement in utilities’ distribution system planning processes. The utilities will then follow the framework before filing electric distribution system infrastructure projects for approval by the DPU and/or the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB).
  • The utilities are required to submit biannual filings to the DPU throughout the ESMP term. The reports will include updated forecasts and an assessment of how the latest forecasts lined up with actual demand; a description of any reprioritization of investments; updates on how the utilities are addressing structural and distributional equity in the implementation of the ESMPs; as well as updates on financing that the utilities are seeking (e.g. state and federal grants, tax incentives, etc.) to help fund the ESMP investments. Future ESMPs will also need to include data from advanced metering infrastructure and smart meters, which are currently being deployed across Massachusetts; rate design solutions, particularly time-varying rates as AMI is deployed; as well as updated distributional and structural equity analyses.
  • The DPU makes clear that it now expects the utilities to incorporate Non-Wires Alternatives (NWA) into “their typical planning processes.” This is a major win for customers, as NWA such as energy efficiency, demand response, battery storage and other DER, can often be cleaner and cheaper than traditional infrastructure investments.
  • The Order maintains the Provisional Program for DER from DPU 20-75 in terms of how upgrades to accommodate new DER projects are paid for. Rather than having the individual DER developer be responsible for the entire cost of any necessary system upgrades, which can often be financially prohibitive, customers will help fund the initial cost of the upgrades. Customers will be reimbursed over time from fees charged to future distributed generation facilities that are able to interconnect due to the prior upgrades.

In approving the ESMPs, the DPU chose not to implement a number of recommendations from Acadia Center and other stakeholders that were intended to strengthen the plans and ensure that they delivered even more benefits to customers. For example:

  • Acadia Center and other stakeholders strongly recommended that the DPU reject utility proposals for “hybrid heating” systems (i.e. projects that include both electric heat pumps and gas or fossil-fuel backup systems), renewable natural gas, and hydrogen. In the Future of Gas proceeding (DPU 20-80-B), the DPU was not persuaded that pursuit of a broad hybrid heating strategy, which would itself necessitate maintenance of the natural gas system to support backup heating systems, is a viable path forward for the Commonwealth. In making that argument, the DPU specifically pointed to improvements in cold climate heat pump technology that will generally eliminate the need for backup heating systems in the future. In the ESMP Order, however, the DPU decided not to take a position on “specific decarbonization pathways,” which the 2022 Clean Energy Act prohibited as part of the ESMP approvals, and declined to explicitly reject hybrid heating, hydrogen, or renewable natural gas projects. However, the DPU noted that the LDCs will be filing Climate Compliance Plans in April 2025, in which those types of projects will be explored in more detail, so the DPU has not ruled out an official determination on the matter.
  • Stakeholders pointed to inconsistencies across the utilities in terms of their forecasting methodologies, inputs, and assumptions. Although the DPU determined that the utilities’ approach to forecasting satisfied the original statutory requirements, it will require the utilities to incorporate new and updated data in future ESMPs and to work with the GMAC going forward on sensitivity analyses.
  • Stakeholders recommended a clearer directive for the Joint Utility Planning Working Group and expectations around timelines and work products. While some specifics were left undecided, the Joint Working Group is nevertheless tasked with (1) developing a shared understanding of the utilities’ networks and network planning processes; (2) leveraging Integrated Energy Planning best practices; (3) conducting joint gas-electric planning studies; (4) creating a roadmap to strengthen IEP capabilities; among other activities.
  • The DPU determined that the estimated bill impacts of the plans were reasonable given expected benefits that will result from the ESMPs. Stakeholders had argued that the ESMPs did not present an accurate picture of ratepayer impacts, in part because of the categorization of certain investments and the lack of clarity in terms of benefit-cost analysis.
  • Stakeholders including Acadia Center identified a number of concerns with the Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) used in the ESMPs. Although the Department did not ultimately require changes to the BCAs in the plans, it noted that more detailed BCAs will be required when the utilities request cost recovery for specific investments in future rate cases.

Despite these gaps, the ESMPs represent a major turning point in Massachusetts’ path towards a modernized and decarbonized electric grid.

Webinar – Bridging the Power Gap: How Bidirectional Clean Energy Benefits the US Northeast and Eastern Canada

 

 

Last week Acadia Center, Environmental League of Massachusetts, and New England for Offshore Wind hosted a webinar – Bridging the Power Gap: How Bidirectional Clean Energy Benefits the US Northeast and Eastern Canada.

Panelists Hannes Pfeifenberger, Adrienne Downey and Emil Dimanchev shared their considerable expertise, and Acadia Center’s Senior Director of Climate and Clean Energy Programs, Jamie Dickerson, led a lively discussion on the possibilities of joint US/Canadian coordination and planning of energy resources, including enhanced reliability, cost and resiliency, as well as increased trade opportunities.

“Offshore wind is ‘pretty much a match made in heaven’ with hydropower when there is enough transmission capacity to enable hydro to firm up the intermittencies of wind.” – Adrienne Downey of Hexicon and Power Advisory

The presentation slides for the event can be found here: Bridging the Power Gap Slides

To stay engaged in the conversation, please follow Northeast Grid Planning Forum (NGPF), a joint effort of Acadia Center and Nergica, on LinkedIn. If you have questions, please reach out to Carolyn Dykema cdykema@acadiacenter.org.

Bridging the Gap: New England’s transmission planning and Order 1920

Transmission lines can carry electricity over long distances, delivering power across the U.S. and keeping the lights on. The electricity grid is changing, and we need to plan for new transmission that will meet the needs of the future, where clean energy will provide most of the power to meet growing demand. Long-term transmission planning is the process of evaluating future transmission needs and is essential to build a cost-effective grid that can support the clean energy transition. This past May, ISO New England (ISO-NE) took a major step forward when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved its Longer-Term Transmission Planning Process (LTTP). The LTTP is a monumental step forward, demonstrating the region’s commitment to building a future-ready grid. If all goes to plan, it will soon result in the construction of new, urgently needed transmission lines.

Just four days after ISO-NE filed its proposal for FERC approval, FERC issued its long-anticipated Order 1920. Order 1920 mandates that all planning regions implement a regular long-term transmission planning process. Grid planning entities, such as ISO-NE, now have until June 2025 to develop and align their processes to meet the requirements set forth in Order 1920.

Although the LTTP closely aligns with Order 1920, there are still some key differences, as NRDC, Acadia Center, and other partners highlighted in joint comments to FERC. This blog will explore and clarify these distinctions. ISO-NE and stakeholders in the New England region should leverage the LTTP to deliver transmission benefits in the near term while evolving toward a more robust long-term framework under FERC Order 1920, providing significant and lasting rewards for consumers and the climate.

Planning cycles

The first key difference between LTTP and Order 1920 lies in the regularity of the planning cycles. Order 1920 mandates that transmission providers conduct Long-Term Regional Transmission Planning at fixed five-year intervals. In contrast, ISO-NE’s current process is initiated only at the request of the New England States Committee on Electricity (NESCOE), which represents the collective perspective of the New England Governors. The LTTP planning horizon goes out to 2050. To comply with Order 1920, ISO-NE will need to establish a planning process that operates automatically at least every five years, independent of stakeholder requests, and incorporates a 20-year planning horizon. The planning intervals and horizon are critical given the fast pace of technological change and market conditions as well as the long timeframe for developing new transmission infrastructure.

In addition to having the authority to initiate the LTTP process, NESCOE also has the authority to terminate it. To comply with Order 1920, however, the planning process cannot be terminated at the request of the states. While the process must remain ongoing once initiated, it must also incorporate robust state input throughout.

Scenario planning

The future of the power system is uncertain, influenced by various factors such as projected demand, extreme weather events, the integration of more clean energy, and the retirement of fossil fuel resources. To address this uncertainty, Order 1920 requires grid planners to consider at least three plausible and diverse future “scenarios.” These scenarios must account for seven key inputs, the first three of which are mandatory and cannot be discounted.

ISO-NE’s transmission planning process consists of two key parts. The first part is triggered when NESCOE requests a “Longer Term Transmission Study” to assess the future needs of the power grid. While ISO-NE’s initial transmission study, released in early 2024, is a strong example of planning for uncertainty, future studies should incorporate at least three scenarios, utilizing the essential inputs mentioned earlier. Additionally, these studies should be shaped by robust stakeholder engagement to ensure that the inputs are well-informed and comprehensive.

Furthermore, Order 1920 mandates that each scenario includes an “extreme weather sensitivity” to ensure the grid’s resilience against climate-induced extreme weather events, such as severe winter storms. To comply with Order 1920, ISO-NE could leverage an existing model to develop extreme weather scenarios—the Probabilistic Energy Adequacy Tool—which can assess the risk of extreme weather events.

Benefits analysis

Once scenarios are developed, grid planning regions must evaluate potential transmission solutions. Order 1920 requires potential projects to be evaluated against seven “benefits,” which are detailed below. This process ensures that the final selected projects will provide the most comprehensive benefits to the region.

ISO-NE’s LTTP takes into account five key benefits, most of which align with those required by Order 1920. However, due to some combinations and overlap, there is one crucial benefit from Order 1920 that is missing and must be incorporated into ISO-NE’s process: the “mitigation of extreme weather and unexpected system conditions.” The table below provides a simple overview of these benefit categories. For a more nuanced side-by-side comparison of how the benefits in LTTP and Order 1920 correspond, a detailed table is available here.

Project selection

After transmission solutions are evaluated using the seven benefits, the ISO selects a final project or portfolio of projects to move forward. Under LTTP, any project that meets a 1 to 1 benefit-to-cost ratio may be selected.  Order 1920 allows transmission providers to use a benefit-to-cost ratio as high as 1.25 to 1 to determine whether the benefits of a project outweigh the cost. LTTP’s benefit-to-cost ratio is compliant with Order 1920, ensuring that benefits will always be commensurate with costs and may even outweigh costs.

Second, under LTTP, NESCOE holds the authority to make the final decision on which projects that meet this threshold are selected and built. It can decide that a project that meets the 1 to 1 benefit-to-cost ratio should not be included in the transmission plan. This decision-making role reflects the strong leadership the New England states have demonstrated in public policy transmission planning. Similar to LTTP, Order 1920 does not mandate that projects that meet the benefit-to-cost ration be selected. However, a key difference is that Order 1920 allows transmission providers—such as ISO-NE (under the terminology of the Order)—the ultimate authority to select transmission projects.

Advanced transmission technologies

Order 1920 mandates that planning regions consider the use of “advanced transmission technologies,” which are innovations designed to enhance the efficiency and capacity of the grid. These technologies often involve upgrades to existing infrastructure, such as replacing older transmission lines with ones capable of carrying more power. LTTP does not have an explicit process to evaluate advanced transmission technologies. To comply with Order 1920, ISO-NE should develop a process to assess whether incorporating advanced transmission technologies into a project would be more cost-effective or efficient.

Cost allocation

Order 1920 resolves a long-standing question: who pays for transmission? Order 1920 requires transmission providers to include one or more “default” cost allocation methods for transmission projects that are selected. It also permits a subset of states to agree to pay for all of part of a transmission project if an agreement is struck.

One of the major breakthroughs of LTTP is the coordination among NESCOE states on cost allocation. By default, the costs of any project that is selected in LTTP are allocated across the region based on load. Additionally, LTTP includes a mechanism that allows states to voluntarily cover excess costs for projects that provide greater benefits to their state compared to others. LTTP meets the requirements of Order 1920 on cost allocation, and should inform Order 1920 compliance.

Stakeholder engagement

ISO-NE plays a crucial role in facilitating meaningful stakeholder engagement in transmission planning. While Order 1920 mandates stakeholder review of planning assumptions, transmission needs, and potential solutions, these requirements should be viewed as a minimum standard.

ISO-NE’s LTTP engages with stakeholders, but only those who are members of the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL), which is made up of generation owners, transmission owners, consumer advocates, and state officials. NEPOOL meetings are not open to the broader public. Long-term regional transmission projects will affect all of New England, not just NEPOOL members. Therefore, it is essential that all transmission planning meetings be open to the public, with materials presented in plain language to ensure meaningful engagement. ISO-NE’s Order 1920 planning process should also prioritize outreach to municipalities and local governments, as they play a critical role in permitting, environmental justice, and the development and enforcement of local laws and regulations.

Conclusion

New England’s LTTP has established a solid foundation for the region’s clean energy future. The upcoming months present exciting opportunities to implement this new process and identify and potentially select new public policy transmission solutions that will benefit the region. However, it is also crucial for ISO-NE to fully comply with Order 1920 to guarantee a resilient, clean, and affordable energy grid that will serve generations to come. LTTP is a solid foundation on which to build ISO-NE’s Order 1920 compliance. We look forward to collaborating with the New England States, ISO-NE, NEPOOL members, and other stakeholders to begin realizing this long-term vision now.

Legislative Roundup: State-Level Battles for Clean Energy Progress

Acadia Center prides itself on advocating for the clean energy future, including within state legislature across the region. While our work spans further across the Northeast, we wanted to highlight a few states to which we dedicated a significant amount of our advocacy efforts in this past year of legislative sessions – including Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Not only is it worth examining the progress made in these states, but we also identify the areas we will push our advocacy toward for the following legislative sessions to come. Overall, despite some modest victories and points of progress, it was a difficult and disappointing year for legislative action on climate and clean energy across the board. Acadia Center will be offering more reactions on and responses to this lack of progress in the weeks ahead.

Connecticut

In the 2024 Connecticut Legislative Session, Acadia Center was a strong proponent and advocate for climate and clean energy policies that supported emissions reductions targets and advanced energy equity goals. One victory aligned with our mission was an update to the Home Environmental Improvement Revolving Loan Fund program, passed in 2023, that now allocates funding for grants to support retrofit projects in multifamily residences in environmental justice communities. Throughout the session, momentum for increased heat pumps deployment resulted in the passage of a deployment study and an outlined heat pump rebate program. Looking ahead, following the failure of the prominent “green monster” climate package, much is left to be desired on key Acadia Center priorities such as increased energy efficiency funding, reforms and proceedings at the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, and grid modernization measures to support our clean energy transition. Acadia Center is ready to lead efforts and ensure the 2025 Legislative Session moves Connecticut closer to being a climate and clean energy leader once again.

Maine

Acadia Center advocated for Maine bills that promoted several important climate and clean energy goals and defended against other measures that would have threatened progress. Acadia Center has coordinated with other nonprofits in Maine where appropriate, with some notable successes. Earlier in the two-year session, Acadia Center helped advocate successfully for a bill entitled “An Act Regarding the Procurement of Energy from Offshore Wind resources.” This bill established a robust system for offshore wind (OSW) development and required that the State procure 3,000 megawatts of OSW energy by 2040, a major leap forward. More recently, in the second year of the two-year session, Acadia Center was instrumental in authoring and supporting eventual passage of a bill that requires the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to study and report on opportunities and barriers to electric vehicle adoption in Maine, helping salvage some progress in the wake of the unfortunate demise of advanced clean cars regulations.

Acadia Center also successfully lobbied against bills that would have ended net energy billing, a Maine program that has successfully established a burgeoning solar and other clean energy resources in Maine, and also lobbied strongly against bills that would have unreasonably impeded the necessary development of electric transmission lines in Maine, while supporting improvements to developer-community engagement efforts.

Unfortunately, the Maine Legislature failed to pass a bill that would require the Public Utilities Commission to open a proceeding on Performance-Based Regulation (PBR). Acadia Center will continue to build support for PBR as a powerful tool for delivering better utility performance for Maine’s ratepayers.

Massachusetts

This legislative session, the Massachusetts House and Senate both passed legislation to reform the siting and permitting of clean energy projects in the Commonwealth in line with recommendations from the Commission on Energy Infrastructure Siting and Permitting. Both branches also included additional important climate measures in their packages.

For example, the Massachusetts Senate focused on reforms to the natural gas system which Acadia Center has championed and included measures that would reform the Gas System Enhancement Program (GSEP), a $40 billion gas replacement program, end the uniform right to gas service in the Commonwealth and require the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) to consider whether the expansion of gas service territory is reasonable and in the public interest. The Senate also banned competitive electric supply contracts for residential customers.

The House took a different approach and included provisions to specifically procure additional offshore wind resources and long-duration energy storage, ensure more widespread proliferation of EV chargers, and support fusion power.

Regrettably, negotiations between the two branches fell apart as the end of the formal legislative calendar approached, and they were unable to come to consensus – with disagreements reportedly centered on Competitive Electric Suppliers and the gas system reforms.

Rhode Island

Rhode Island’s 2024 legislative session yielded little action to tackle emissions in the building sector. Acadia Center’s top legislative priority, the Building Decarbonization Act (H7617/S2952), saw partial passage in the Senate and negotiations in the House resulted in the passage of a resolution to study benchmarking and building performance standards (BPS).

We were glad to celebrate the passage of S2952A in the Senate, an important statement on the value of benchmarking energy usage in our buildings. This amended version of the bill includes benchmarking and BPS for large public and private buildings but removes any requirements for all-electric new construction. What was retained was the requirement for electric ready construction of public buildings; this section also includes provisions for registered apprenticeship programs and project labor agreements.

Unfortunately, negotiations in the House and with other state leaders not only rejected all-electric new construction, but also pushed back on the concept of benchmarking and BPS. Acadia Center contributed to the development of H7617A, a joint resolution directing the Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council (EC4) to study the implementation of benchmarking and BPS. The resolution successfully passed both the House and the Senate on the last night of session, thereby becoming law. Ensuring that the EC4 produces a timely and valuable report by the deadline of February 15, 2025, will require accountability over the coming months.

One victory worth celebrating was the passage of S2499, the Energy Storage Systems Act, which sets a deployment target of 600 MW of energy storage capacity by 2033 – which will help Rhode Island save costs and emissions during peak periods.

Climate Plans and Equity and Environmental Justice Advisory Boards

Following years of research on the global impact of climate change, states in the Northeast and the nation at large have begun to pass laws aiming both to curb greenhouse emissions and to instill equity and environmental justice into emission reduction efforts. Being less than three decades from 2050, many states have codified their mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to 80-85% from 1990 levels and achieve net zero by that timeframe. To help keep states on track to achieve those goals, states have charged climate leadership governing bodies and/or state agencies to carefully guide the decision-making process and lead states to achieve their GHG reduction targets in the various sectors of the economy. Each state designates its climate leadership body slightly differently: for example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts assembled the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) Implementation Advisory Committee (IAC); Rhode Island refers to its governing body as the Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council (EC4); the state of Connecticut’s climate governing body is the Governor’s Council on Climate Change (GC3); and the Maine Climate Council (MCC) spearheads the climate plans for the state of Maine. Other variations exist in different states in the region.

Though these climate leadership councils are critical for comprehensive climate planning, they have been focused first and foremost on emissions reductions, and some of their members may have limited understanding or direct experience of underlying issues of inequity and environmental injustice in the context of climate action. This poses a challenge in properly crafting climate solutions for many communities that are in a disadvantaged or underserved position in the transition to a clean energy future. Many states, recognizing this limitation, began putting together a second similar council to provide equity and environmental justice guidance for climate solutions and work alongside the climate leadership councils/bodies. These equity and environmental justice forums were created by a mix of legislative and executive actions and were tasked with the responsibility of providing an equity and justice lens and guidance to the climate plans.1,2,3 However, many states in the Northeast have formed these equity forums as either working groups or advisory bodies for input and consultation, which in turn has presented some limitations in the scope and effectiveness of their roles to influence and shape climate policy decision-making.

For the protection of low-income and environmental justice communities, equity-related barriers in the transition must be considered at the beginning of the formulation of the climate plans. Researching states’ climate plans showed that most of the input from the equity advisory councils and working groups were considered comments or recommendations in response to already-drafted climate plans, written separately by their states’ climate councils. While better than lacking recommendations, soliciting equity-focused feedback to already-crafted climate plans hinders innovative and well-thought-out solutions that could work better for environmental justice and low-income communities.

Another major limitation of the equity and environmental justice advisory council model in the Northeast is their role as advisory forums with limited capacity to spearhead the inclusion of equity causes in climate plans. States in the Northeast must find ways to establish both legal direction and agency resourcing/backing for environmental justice initiatives if there is to be a consistent, effective championing of equity and environmental justice as a concept with consequences throughout the development and implementation of each state’s climate plan. Creating agencies or offices and hiring full-time public servants dedicated to environmental justice is a first step. Massachusetts recently took this leap in 2023 with the creation of the Office of Environmental Justice and Equity within the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA). Another promising model was California’s Bureau of Environmental Justice within its state Department of Justice to provide state entities with a means to maintain accountability when equity standards are not upheld.  The Northeast can do even better; however, it begins by empowering equity and environmental justice councils as more than just advisory bodies but as partners in co-designing equitable climate solutions.

For more information:

Joy Yakie, Environmental Justice and Outreach Manager  jyakie@acadiacenter.org, 617–742-0054 x110

____________________________________

  1. About the Environmental Justice Council, MA: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/about-the-environmental-justice-council-ejc
  2. Maine Climate Council Equity Subcommittee: https://www.maine.gov/future/initiatives/climate/climate-council/equity-subcommittee
  3. New York State Climate Justice Working Group: https://climate.ny.gov/Resources/Climate-Justice-Working-Group

Observations and Takeaways from the Vineyard Wind Blade Incident: An Unfortunate Episode for an Indispensable Energy Resource in the Northeast

Acadia Center has been monitoring the Vineyard Wind blade damage incident as it has unfolded off the coast of Nantucket over the last several weeks. We recognize and appreciate the impact that the incident has had on Nantucket residents and business owners, and wish to express the organization’s support to the response crews – both formal and informal – who continue to aid in the safe collection and removal of the resulting debris that came ashore.

The blade’s initial damage and subsequent breakdown in the ocean was an extremely unfortunate accident, and it comes at a challenging time for the nascent offshore wind industry in the United States. The underlying cause that led to the incident must be determined and remedied swiftly, and a full public accounting must be provided – recognizing that a complete diagnosis of the situation may take some time. Matters of health and safety are of paramount importance, and it is vital that the ongoing response efforts protect local communities, project workers, wildlife, ocean navigators, and others who stand to be directly affected. Measures must also be taken to avoid any chance of recurrence in the future, so offshore wind can continue forward in a sustainable and safe manner – and so that coastal communities can be reassured that this source of clean energy will not pose any safety or environmental threat.

More details continue to emerge about the underlying cause of the blade incident, with signs pointing to a manufacturing defect (e.g., inadequate fiberglass bonding) rather than damage sustained during installation. But even as the facts are still being gathered and an investigation remains underway, misinformation is already spreading online, with the images of a broken blade and fiberglass shards being manipulated via viral means, including by some that cheer the accident as a setback to offshore wind. This incident is a regrettable and newsworthy event, and we all must learn from it to strengthen the region’s offshore wind industry – with the many energy, environmental, and economic benefits it provides – while ensuring the safety and security of local communities. Nevertheless, a deliberative and purposeful approach must be taken as experts collectively diagnose, understand, and remedy this unfortunate episode.

Offshore wind is and will remain indispensable to meeting the Northeast’s energy needs and to the nation’s future. Offshore wind fills a crucial role in fighting to prevent the worst human and environmental impacts of a warming climate. It is also among the most cost-effective options the Northeast has at its disposal to deliver energy reliably during the winter, reducing the use of fossil fuels for power generation and providing clean electrons needed to keep families and businesses warm. Virtually all major studies examining the region’s changing energy mix forecast a major reliance on offshore wind, with 20 to 40+ gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind installed by 2050. By way of comparison, the power production capacity of all 400 of the region’s electric generating facilities is currently 29.7 GW. While offshore wind is relatively new in the United States, the industry is well established internationally, and incidents like this are very rare (although not unheard of). Actors across industry, government, and civil society have a role to play in ensuring this remains the case here in the U.S. as the industry continues to make inroads.

Everyone with a stake in the growth of offshore wind should learn from this incident. Acadia Center offers some observations and recommendations on steps that can be taken in the near future:

  1. Establish and execute better, clearer communication protocols and lines of accountability during emergency response conditions: To keep communities, local officials, and the broader public better informed during unexpected incidents, project proponents must improve the timeliness, frequency, and level of detail of their communications. Establishing these protocols in advance and equipping local communities with designated emergency liaisons from the get-go are vital given the many different entities involved in situations such as this – from the project sponsor and the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to the companies responsible for installation and continuous monitoring. Building trust requires bringing officials and the public into the circle of awareness as events unfold.
  2. Strengthen and deepen low probability event planning in the federal permitting process for offshore energy resources (both clean and fossil): Currently, project proponents in offshore energy lease areas must follow an extensive application process governed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), housed within the Department of the Interior (DOI). Although these ‘construction and operations plan’ (COP) filings do contain some language on response activities for so-called ‘low probability events,’ those application materials must be strengthened considerably in light of the nature of this incident – which differs fundamentally from the existing focus on rare events like vessel collisions and allisions, fuel spills, and other accidental releases of liquids from construction equipment.
  3. Consider a centralized regional monitoring and response infrastructure, right-sized for the need: For offshore wind, a centralized apparatus for the region as a whole, or at least coastal states, might be better suited to monitor conditions and coordinate response activities during rare events such as this. The Vineyard Wind incident happened to be a Massachusetts project (in federal waters) that primarily affected Massachusetts communities, but this may not always be the case. While a blade break of this nature will hopefully remain extremely rare or may never occur again in the region, some degree of multi-state or regional coordination on basic monitoring and emergency management activities would seem prudent, given the multi-gigawatt build-out that the region will need to see. Perhaps, there may already be readily available infrastructure to better make use of – for instance, via existing U.S. Coast Guard installations or NOAA offices in the region.
  4. Leverage the region’s R&D/engineering prowess to drive safety with innovation: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was an early pioneer in turbine blade testing and safety through the investments made at MassCEC’s Charlestown Wind Technology Testing Center (WTTC). As the root cause analysis is completed and lessons are learned, those learnings should be directly incorporated into the ongoing testing activities at the WTTC and other similar facilities. Other centers of applied offshore wind R&D around the region – including the National Offshore Wind R&D Consortium (NOWRDC), operated out of New York State – can and should also double down on their focus on safety and accident-prevention for the technologies the region will install in the decades ahead (see, e.g., an NOWRDC investment for a project verifying blade integrity during manufacture). Across the board, more of this work must be done, and the region should put its collective institutions and brain power to work to bring forward new engineering solutions that improve safety, reduce risk, and bolster resilience.