Op-Ed: Offshore Wind is critical to a livable and equitable future

The climate crisis demands a fundamental cultural shift in our energy system. Revolution Wind 1 and the South Fork Wind projects off Rhode Island’s coast meet a critical need for large-scale carbon-free electricity generation in the Northeast. But two stewards of historic and cultural structures, the Preservation Society of Newport County and the Southeast Lighthouse Foundation, recently positioned their organizations at odds with these projects in a group of appeals that cite alleged impacts to ocean views.

We implore these cultural institutions to withdraw their lawsuits and reconsider their role in the necessary shift away from fossil fuel energy and in stewarding a livable and equitable future for centuries to come.

Projected sea level rise of up to 10 feet in Newport over the next 75 years not only threatens our state’s coastal heritage, including the very resources in question with these lawsuits, but it also threatens the lives of our residents, particularly those who are most vulnerable and have borne the brunt of the impacts from the fossil fuel economy.

The recent release of the Fifth US National Climate Assessment (NCA) underscores the severe threat that climate change poses. We are already seeing adverse impacts across the globe, with July having the hottest temperatures recorded in more than 125,000 years, catastrophic wildfires, and intensified storms worldwide. In Rhode Island, we are experiencing wildfire smoke from Canada, unprecedented rainfall and flooding, and we have some of the fastest-warming waters in Narragansett Bay. This will continue to worsen unless we ensure systemic change.

While climate change affects everyone, its impact is disproportionately felt by low-income families, communities of color, and other underserved populations. These communities, despite contributing the least to the issue, are more impacted by extreme heat and flooding and often bear the brunt of fossil fuel facilities emitting hazardous pollutants that negatively affect their health. Prioritizing ocean views over the climate crisis and the heightened risk to environmental justice communities is a form of energy privilege.

Offshore wind is a crucial energy source to reduce emissions and mitigate the worst effects of climate change in Rhode Island and the Northeast. Decarbonizing our economy requires eliminating emissions in the electricity supply and electrifying transportation and heating. With the increase in power demand due to electrification, there is an urgent need for large-scale carbon-free electricity generation. The robust wind resource off our coast, particularly during the winter when energy for heating is most critical, makes offshore wind a vital resource for decarbonizing the region. The Road to 100% Renewable Electricity Report by the Brattle Group emphasizes the importance of offshore wind in meeting Rhode Island’s 100 percent renewable energy standard.

Both Revolution Wind 1(serving Rhode Island and Connecticut) and South Fork Wind (serving New York) have committed to project labor agreements, bringing high-paying union jobs to our region. The Revolution Wind 1 project has already created a $40 million investment in port facilities in Rhode Island and is set to create over 1,000 construction jobs in Connecticut and Rhode Island. Offshore wind can also protect consumers from the volatility of fossil fuel prices.

Litigating against projects like Revolution Wind 1 and South Fork Wind jeopardizes the well-being of future generations, exacerbates social disparities, and hinders the economic benefits of offshore wind for Rhode Island and the region – while forestalling progress against the climate risks that threaten the very cultural landmarks these legal challenges purport to protect. The benefits of these projects far outweigh the impacts claimed in these lawsuits.

Members and allies of the Rhode Island State Committee of the New England for Offshore Wind Coalition – including Carpenters Local Union 330, Climate Action Rhode Island, the Environment Council of Rhode Island, Citizens Climate Lobby, Conservation Law Foundation, and the Rhode Island AFL-CIO – agree that these lawsuits must be withdrawn or swiftly rejected to ensure the necessary shift in our energy system and steward a livable and equitable future for generations to come.

Amanda Barker of Green Energy Consumers Alliance and Emily Koo of Acadia Center are members of the Rhode Island State Committee of the New England for Offshore Wind Coalition

Read the op-ed in the Boston Globe here.

Op-Ed: Canada must co-operate more with U.S. in developing electricity grids

Frédéric Côté is the general manager of Nergica. Daniel Sosland is the president of Acadia Center.

In the halls of power where the future of the electrical grid is planned and billions of ratepayer dollars are on the table, there is an elephant in the room – and it isn’t happy.

This paper’s editorial board was spot on when it said the topic of clean power should be “top of the list” for provincial leaders, and we applaud the federal government’s repeated promise to deliver clean electricity investment tax credits in its recent fall economic statement. But Canadians are missing a much wider and significant context emerging in North America: The United States is planning a continental grid, and much greater cross-border co-operation is needed for both countries to succeed in building it.

Grid modernization is essential to meet climate targets and position the continental Northeast to take advantage of clean energy opportunities. Done correctly, it will also improve service reliability and help control costs. Provinces, however, continue to plan their power grids in virtual isolation of one another – and with little discussion with their American neighbours. This isolationism is not in the long-term interest of both countries and cuts against a consensus that such interregional planning – as it is known in electric industry circles – is imperative to our collective energy security.

Why consider co-ordinating efforts? Well, first of all, American states are seeking it! In June, the six New England states, New York and New Jersey wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) calling for a new approach to interregional planning between the jurisdictions, proposing that appropriate Canadian jurisdictions should take part as well. The DOE and federally regulated regional transmission organizations of the U.S. Northeast have voiced support for this new model and are co-operating to develop strategies. To date, Canadian provinces are missing from the table.

A co-operative dialogue between the provinces and states offers improved public interest outcomes: consumer energy savings, increased system reliability, greater technical efficiency, more equitable distribution of benefits and the intentional inclusion of local concerns on matters such as project siting and mitigating community impacts. The latter is imperative in earning public support for infrastructure build-out to fight climate change.

Complex problems related to the future of our electricity supply in a carbon-constrained world are unlikely to be solved at a political negotiating table. Rather, they require patiently thought-out solutions achieved through inclusive discussion. These solutions will require analysis derived from regulators, developers, utilities, researchers and market design experts from various jurisdictions. The inputs of consumers, communities, Indigenous leaders and other stakeholders who pay for and are directly affected by decisions made about the grid must also be prioritized.

The ratepayer and voter should be very concerned that provinces and states are not collaborating to pursue these benefits. Interjurisdictional co-operation has been limited to narrow issues around specific, often controversial transmission projects, not on the broader and critical issue of how our shared electricity system can improve the lives and pocketbooks of all residents. Simply put, the clean energy transition cannot maximize consumer, system and equity benefits if provinces treat their grids as closed markets except to promote electricity exports.

The United States is focusing increased attention on power infrastructure and market co-operation. The Inflation Reduction Act, emerging federal regulations and state policies are all pushing electrification forward on a new footing. Canadian grid planners need to align with that effort.

Various scholars, trade associations and utility planners from both sides of the border have been calling for interregional planning in the Northeast for more than a generation. It is seen as an economic imperative. Given the right interregional mandate, regulators and planners from across the Northeast will enable greater investment in infrastructure and technology, from onshore and offshore wind and rooftop solar to district energy plants and energy efficiency measures, elevating community concerns as a top-level consideration, not an afterthought, as is often the case now.

To read the op-ed on the Globe and Mail, click here.

Clean Energy, Climate, Consumers, and the Future of the Electric Utility: Where Does Maine Go from Here?

A recent highly publicized ballot initiative in Maine focused on the importance of getting the utilities’ role right in the clean energy transition. The ballot initiative asked Maine voters to approve a process to transition the state’s two for-profit electric utilities, Central Maine Power and Versant, into a new consumer-owned utility to be called Pine Tree Power. The referendum proposed to have Pine Tree Power governed by a board of 13 elected members, seven of whom would be elected in statewide public elections, and the remaining six appointed by the elected members. On November 7, 2023, Maine voters overwhelmingly voted not to proceed with Pine Tree Power.

The referendum’s defeat is not an ending, but instead an opportunity for a new beginning. Maine’s utility regulators must ensure that the state’s utility policies are aligned with climate, consumer, and equity priorities—regardless of whether its utilities are publicly or privately owned. By doing so, Maine can motivate its utilities to be full partners in fighting climate change, accelerating the clean energy transition, protecting consumer interests, and promoting environmental justice.

However, it should be noted that utilities in Maine caused consumers to rebel. Legitimate complaints about customer service, reliability, and billing abound. Maine’s utilities have reacted to complaints defensively and have been slow to respond to the urgent demands of climate change and creating a clean energy future.

Second, the utility regulatory structure in Maine must change regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Maine, like most states, continues to rely on a utility monopoly structure that was developed decades ago in very different times. Utility monopolies were created to streamline bringing electric service to all. The impetus for creating monopoly utilities like Central Maine Power was to optimize the growth of electric service by connecting electric generating plants to a single distribution system of wires and poles that reached rural and urban communities alike.

But that was decades ago, and times have changed. Today, the role of electricity in our economy and lives is far different. Reliable electric service is not a luxury but essential to modern life’s functioning and safety. We need electricity to power almost all aspects of our lives, from heating systems to refrigeration and almost everything in between. Moreover, electrification is critical to today’s climate goals. New clean, electric technologies can provide greater comfort at lower costs and lower emissions. But the way Maine regulates its utilities must change to make this a reality. The return on investment for a utility shareholder should not matter more than providing utility customers with the best possible energy options at the lowest price. Under existing utility policies, investor-owned utilities are driven by one mantra: to provide the highest possible return on investment to shareholders, while customers and climate goals take a back seat.  That system imposes conflicting incentives on the utility’s decision making.

There is a better way!

Acadia Center is actively engaged in efforts to advance policies that will reshape the role of Maine’s utilities as proactive players in the clean energy transition. For example, we are calling for regulators to ensure that metrics for utility success and performance are meaningfully tied to the right policy priorities and that utilities are held accountable for their performance. Acadia Center advocates for performance-based metrics and incentives for utilities that tie utility compensation to performance, including lowering bills and increasing customer satisfaction ratings. For any normal business, competitive pressure would force it to reduce costs, but in a monopolistic system, while Maine utilities receive a guaranteed high rate of return, they are not subject to similar competitive pressures.

Acadia Center is further advancing reforms to improve and modernize state utility planning oversight. Utility planning processes should eliminate barriers to clean distributed energy resources and non-wires alternatives, but today, that is not the case. Acadia Center has offered a new, updated framework for utility oversight and energy system planned called RESPECT: Reforming Energy System Planning for Equity and Climate Transformation.  RESPECT recommends a modernized framework for how utilities should make long-term investment decisions to ensure energy systems are aligned with state goals to address climate pollution, further environmental justice, and lower consumer costs.  For example, currently, utilities both plan and make decisions on which energy options they should invest in.  Often these decisions are informed by the financial return for the company. Critically, RESPECT contains approaches to remove these competing financial and planning incentives on the utility by offering a new approach for independent system planning.  Acadia Center advocates for more comprehensive utility planning efforts, such as the Maine PUC’s Integrated Grid Planning (which Acadia Center was instrumental in getting written into law).  These efforts will require active participation and clear buy-in by the utilities and the Maine Public Utility Commission.

These are just several examples of the many important policy changes needed. But despite the complexity of utility reform, Maine does not have to look far for notable models of better practices. In Vermont, for example, Green Mountain Power (GMP) offers multiple programs that treat customers as partners and looks for ways to provide them relief, not just to collect their bills. For example, GMP provides direct incentives to its customers that are not mere tokens: customers can receive up to $10,500 for the installation of home batteries, free at-home EV chargers (and a lower EV charging rate) as well as generous rebates and incentives for heat pumps, induction stoves, electric yard equipment, and a host of other electric devices. The kinds of innovative programs that utilities like Green Mountain Power offer could provide a roadmap for Maine’s utilities – and greatly benefit Maine families by offering a full array of new options to control costs.

Now is a critical time for ensuring that Maine’s electrical system works for the benefit of consumers and communities in Maine, and not distant shareholders whose focus is return on investment. Look for Acadia Center to dive into these issues in more detail and offer specific recommendations in the coming months.

Myth Busting: Electric Vehicle Charging and Reliability

EVs don’t work in the cold weather, and the car heater kills the battery!

While older EVs do experience reduced efficiency in their battery life below 30° Fahrenheit, traditional gas-powered vehicles experience the same issue. In newer EV models this issue is reduced and the extreme cold usually affects the battery by about 15-30%. Newer EVs have also found a solution to the problem of heater use reducing the battery level, equipping their models with heat pumps that heat the car and do not reduce the battery capacity by any significant percentage when in use.

EVs are expensive; it’s cheaper to stick with gas vehicles.

In very recent years, both new and used car prices have dramatically escalated. But the price for many EV models has come down, and there are financial incentives available for many makes of cars from federal and state programs that make EVs competitive with the price of new gasoline and hybrid vehicles. You can check the IRS website to see financial incentives that may be applicable to your situation. The incentives can be substantial, depending on where the car was built, and the battery materials were mined. Lower price EVs include the Kia Niro, Chevrolet Bolt, and Tesla Model 3 (base model).

The range thing freaks me out; I could get stranded!

Most late-model EVs have an achievable range of about 200-250 miles, and several have more than 300 miles, far above the range of the average daily driver. Charging stations exist throughout the region for longer trips, with new programs promoting additional charging station locations. Plus, it’s important to remember that if you have a home charger, you can fully charge your EV and need fewer breaks at charging stations on the road.

Charging an EV is complicated; how do people figure it out?

Charging an EV is similar in many ways to charging a mobile phone. You can charge your EV in at least three ways. Here are your options:

1. Plug it into a wall socket! A typical home socket is 110V, known as a Level 1 charger. This method of charging can be slow, taking about 8-10 hours to charge the battery fully. Few people prefer this method because it takes so long.
2. Install a Level 2 charger at home that can “fill the tank” in about 2-4 hours. This charger uses 240 volts, typically charging four times faster than Level 1. Many states or consumer groups have incentives to install home chargers, and they’re as simple to use as plugging in your car and removing the plug once it’s full. Here’s a picture of a home charger in my garage. I have two lines for two EVs.

3. Charge on the road with a “Supercharger” in about 20-30 minutes. See below for more on the Supercharger.

Wait, I can charge at home, but what about out on the road? I’m going to get stranded again!

There are chargers throughout the U.S. and Canada. In Maine, where I live, there are approximately 216 high-speed chargers available on the roads, with 708 slower community chargers. Of course, there are fewer chargers in rural areas, and some planning is required. It is a little more complicated than charging at home, but not much, and there are phone apps that can help you navigate to the nearest charger. On the road, many chargers are so-called “Superchargers” or Level 3 chargers that can charge your car fully in about 20-30 minutes. A new fleet of even faster Level 4 chargers is being installed in the United States. You can easily download many apps on your phone, such as Plugshare and ABRP, which show you where the chargers are located, whether they are working or occupied. Once you find one on the map, you touch the screen on the pin, and it gives you directions to the Supercharger! These apps also allow you to plan your journey so that you are sure chargers will be available along the way.

For questions, please email Senior Policy Advocate and Maine Program Director Pete LaFond at plafond@acadiacenter.org, and he will endeavor to answer your questions.

Achieving progress on environmental justice policy implementation: Community organizer and policymaker perceptions on equitable solutions

Urban environmental injustices are rooted in structurally racist discriminatory policy outcomes like segregation, redlining, highway construction, and deindustrialization. Uncovering policymakers’ and community organizers’ perceptions can guide equitable solutions to systemic environmental harms. To address decades of underinvestment and ongoing environmental injustices, Executive Order 14008 launched the Justice40 Initiative. Justice40 set a goal of directing 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investment flows to address the following environmental justice program areas: climate change, clean energy, energy efficiency, clean transit, affordable housing, workforce development, cleanup of industrial pollution, and development of critical clean water and wastewater infrastructure. Justice40’s implementation processes must incorporate policymaker and organizer perspectives to ensure equitable program and policy design.

In an October 2022 article, researchers from RAND Corporation investigated the perceptions of community organizers and policymakers on existing and proposed environmental justice policies. Motivated by Justice40, the authors explore perceptions of environmental justice-oriented policy design and implementation processes. Published by the journal Environmental Justice, the researchers interviewed 19 environmental leaders across eight U.S. cities. They used a semi-structured interview guide and developed a codebook of shared patterns and concerns among organizers and policymakers. When asked about how environmental history shapes their current priorities, interviewees across sectors reported on the value of cultivating trust through meaningful engagement, prioritizing procedural and distributional equity, and demonstrating awareness of unintended consequences.

The authors find that gaining community organizers’ trust involves transparency, accountability, and avoiding false promises. Policymakers can address this challenge by committing to procedural and distributional equity in policy design and implementation. In this study, procedural equity prioritizes meaningful community engagement and consultation through scoping and decision-making processes. Distributional equity aims to ensure equitable percentages of benefits from solutions are allocated to historically underserved and underinvested communities. Interviewees in this study shared policies underway to tackle urban environmental injustices that align with Justice40’s goals.

Procedural and distributional equity also include community education and outreach. Organizers believe residents also need to know the connections between historical actions and current challenges. They advocate for educational programming on the systemic origins of environmental injustices. Across interviews, organizers named the ways discriminatory policy outcomes like segregation, redlining, racial covenants, highway construction, and deindustrialization entrenched environmental harm across generations. Yet organizers highlight a gap between these histories and current community perceptions and priorities.

The authors also called attention to the unintended consequences of environmental justice policy implementation. Across interviews, organizers and policymakers expressed concerns about green gentrification, affordable housing, and physical and cultural displacement. Accordingly, the study unveiled frustrations from community members when funding allocation and attention toward environmental justice policies disregard their broader economic, social, and political livelihoods. The authors’ analysis suggests combining environmental justice policy design with affordable housing and anti-displacement initiatives to ease these sentiments.

It is necessary to use policymaker and organizer perceptions on environmental justice policies as critical insight for Justice40 implementation. This study highlights the importance of embracing meaningful community engagement to avoid unintended consequences, such as gentrification and delayed investment in housing, parks, and infrastructure. Integrating procedural and distributional equity can help address urban environmental injustices and guide progress on policies aligned with the goals of Justice40.

Original Paper: Siddiqi, S. M., Mingoya-LaFortune, C., Chari, R., Preston, B. L., Gahlon, G., Hernandez, C. C., Huttinger, A., Stephenson, S. R., & Madrigano, J. (2022). The Road to Justice40: Organizer and Policymaker Perspectives on the Historical Roots of and Solutions for Environmental Justice Inequities in U.S. Cities. Environmental Justice, env.2022.0038. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2022.0038

To read the original article in Yale Environment Review, click here.

Hydropower and Sustainable Development at Climate Week NYC

What is Climate Week NYC?

Climate Week NYC is the largest annual climate event of its kind, bringing together some 400 events and activities across the City of New York – in person, hybrid and online. Each year, business leaders, political change makers, local decision takers and civil society representatives of all ages and backgrounds, from all over the world, gather to drive the transition, speed up progress, and champion change that is already happening.

What event did Acadia Center specifically take part in?

Acadia Center president Dan Sosland was invited to join a panel of experts to discuss large-scale hydropower operations, climate, and sustainability issues. The International Hydropower Association (IHA) has developed a Hydropower Sustainability Standard (HSS) intended to provide an objective set of criteria to assess the operations of existing hydropower facilities. The HSS covers 11 major areas of hydropower operations, including ecosystem and community impacts.

The HSS was developed by NGOs, including the World Wildlife Federation, the Hydropower Sustainability Council, an independent NGO, and government and industry participants. Certification of a project indicates that it meets minimum sustainability expectations across a comprehensive range of topics using up-to-date and sector-specific sustainability guidance.

Hydro-Québec chose to become the first North American hydropower generator to seek certification, a process that began in May 2022 with the audit of its facilities at the Eastmain-1 Development.

In addition to Dan, panelists included prominent international environmental leader Ashok Khosla with the Hydropower Sustainability Council, who is credited with coining the concept of international sustainability, Gia Schneider, founder of Natel Energy, who works on innovation approaches to fisheries protection, and Margaret Trias, an international consultant expert in certification who was one of three independent assessors of the Eastmain-1 project. The panel was moderated by Carolyn Kissane, clinical professor at NYU and Director of the NYU SPS Energy, Climate Justice, and Sustainability (ECJS) Lab. Final words were provided by Aaron Mair, of the Adirondack Council, a leading environmental justice advocate in New York.

Why did Acadia Center specifically involve itself with this topic?

Acadia Center’s mission includes addressing climate and clean energy issues across the region of the northeast U.S. and eastern Canada. Cross-border interactions between these states and provinces occur in many ways. By taking an extensive view of the region, Acadia Center looks for opportunities to advance and assess climate solutions that cross borders when they provide climate, consumer and environmental benefits. Acadia Center’s Dan Sosland has been involved in numerous regulatory issues surrounding hydropower and watershed impacts and protection. Acadia Center has been directly involved in issues surrounding the role of Canadian hydro as a decarbonization pathway. Acadia Center is currently working with Canadian partners on a project called the Northeast Grid Planning Forum to encourage dialogue to explore the benefits on both sides of the border of greater cooperation between U.S. and Canadian power grids to meet climate, cost, reliability and clean energy goals.

What role will hydropower play in the future of clean energy and sustainable development?

Large-scale hydropower offers both benefits and impacts. The hydropower system in Quebec is extensive and provides low-cost electricity in Quebec and to U.S. states and cities. Reputable independent academic studies have concluded that the existing hydropower system in Quebec generates electricity at very low emission levels, approaching that of solar energy. However, large-scale hydropower can also have significant impacts on watersheds, cultural issues, and indigenous populations.

This event had some prominent panelists. What did you learn from them?

A key takeaway is that the Hydropower Sustainability Standard can significantly influence how a hydropower developer like Hydro-Quebec manages its system. As Joao Costa with the International Hydropower Association explained in a detailed presentation, like other certification approaches such as the U.S. EPA’s EnergyStar and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, hydro operations can be significantly and positively improved by evaluating against objective, best practices criteria.

What are the high-end takeaways from this event?

Hydropower currently plays a large role around the world as a low-cost and low-emission energy resource. The Hydropower Sustainability Standard can have a positive impact on hydropower operations, including ecological and cultural concerns. Future new developments, however, will depend upon whether a proposed project assesses the full scope of impacts and whether it has the support of local populations. Changes in operations and approaches are happening. For example, in the multi-billion Champlain Hudson Power Express transmission line project connecting Hydro-Quebec to New York City, the portion of the new transmission line in Canada will be jointly owned by the Mohawk community and Hydro-Quebec.

International Clean Energy Grid Coordination in the Northeast and Eastern Canada: Starting the Northeast Grid Planning Forum Dialogue

The Northeastern states and neighboring Canadian Eastern Provinces have set ambitious targets to reduce climate emissions by 2050. Fossil fuel power generation must be replaced with low and no-carbon electricity sources and electrified building heating and transportation to meet these goals. Studies show that a 4-fold or greater increase in clean energy generation is necessary to achieve these targets. Transitioning the electric power grid is central to success in our region and North America.

An essential tool the region can add to the climate toolbox would spur greater cooperation and coordination between the electric power grids on both sides of the U.S./Canada border. Acadia Center and the Quebec-based clean energy organization Nergica, with experts from both sides of the border, are convening the Northeast Grid Planning Forum for these discussions. The Northeast Grid Planning Forum will spur conversations to imagine a power grid that conducts itself according to the following public interest values:

• Reliable, efficient service.
• Attaining climate decarbonization and clean energy goals.
• Providing a respectful process for community and indigenous concerns.
• Prioritizing consumer and justice needs.

The Northeast Grid Planning Forum will bring voices to the table to address planning, investment, market design, and operational approaches that optimize clean energy supply, infrastructure, and complementary resources on both sides of the border. Currently, the region lacks a coherent planning process, resulting in uncoordinated projects that fail to align with a shared vision for the future energy system. Vulnerable communities, including low-income communities, communities of color, and non-English speaking communities, bear the brunt of these impacts.

The benefits of a better-coordinated grid include cost savings, reduced emissions, improved reliability, lower compliance costs for climate goals, expanded energy efficiency, and reduced environmental justice impacts. Coordinated grid integration would also facilitate the expansion of locally distributed clean energy, streamline opportunities presented by federal action, and provide a process for communities to be engaged in project development and siting.

The Northeast Grid Planning Forum proposes several next steps, including initiating conversations with interested entities, drafting a “bill of principles,” developing information and best practices, and outlining an outreach and messaging framework. These steps aim to build stakeholder buy-in, generate interest from decision-makers, attract investment, and ensure a socially accepted and equitable transition.

There is significant support from states, experts, regulators, and advocates in the U.S. and Canada for grid coordination. Meeting the climate goals requires an unprecedented “build-out” that demands rapid action and investment in new transmission lines and expanded distributed energy. By coordinating grid integration efforts and addressing community and stakeholder concerns, the region can leverage clean energy resources efficiently and achieve a more sustainable and equitable energy system for the future.

Why Massachusetts Needs a Clean Heat Standard

Ben Butterworth, Director of Climate, Energy, and Equity Analysis, spoke at the Building Decarbonization Coalition’s National Policy Call for Massachusetts about the Clean Heat Standard (CHS) and gas system planning. A Clean Heat Standard (CHS) is a performance standard requiring heating energy providers to replace fossil fuel heating with clean heat over time. They can do this by implementing clean heat measures, such as high-efficiency electric heat pumps or purchasing credits. A CHS requires either a gradually increasing percentage of low-emission heating services to customers over time or credits that are allocated based on the number of tons of greenhouse gas reduced. Heating energy providers include natural gas utilities, delivered fuel providers like heating oil and propane, and potentially electric utilities.

How Could Massachusetts Benefit from a CHS?

The MA Global Warming Solutions Act requires economy-wide net zero emissions by 2050 and 50% below 1990 levels by 2030. The building heat and cooling sector itself has a goal of a 49% reduction by 2030. The state’s energy efficiency program has been one of the critical drivers of building decarbonization, but more is needed. Spreading the cost of the building energy transition to natural gas, propane, and heating oil customers rather than only electric heating customers is the only sustainable way forward. A Clean Heat Standard can provide a solid boost to other efforts to decarbonize buildings, such as energy efficiency incentives, public funding and taxes, updated building codes, and fossil gas bans that take time to work.

One core challenge Massachusetts faces is not having a comprehensive plan for the future of gas systems over the next three decades. Coordination with gas system planning is vital because it allows for long-term planning that supports the least-cost pathway to net zero instead of only permitting short-term strategies that produce marginal reductions in emissions. The Future of Gas docket (DPU 20-80) attempted to create that vision, and Acadia Center was heavily involved throughout that process. The DPU has failed to rule on this issue as of September 2023. The CHS would complement strategic, geographically targeted decommissioning of the gas distribution system in a least-cost, equitable manner.

So, how does the state create an equitable CHS?

Disadvantaged communities disproportionately live in older, less efficiently heated households. These communities must be involved in the design of the CHS program. To ensure equitable design of the CHS, a “just transition fee” can be imposed on projects that don’t support equitable outcomes, “carve out” requirements for disadvantaged communities, and generate higher program incentives for equitable projects. Additionally, coordination with policy solutions outside the scope of CHS, such as rate reform, is also essential.

A Clean Heat Standard must ensure that the right clean energy technologies are promoted and that there is a straightforward way to measure the emissions impacts of the program. For example, the CHS promotes biomass heating in some states, which is a high-emitting energy choice. To meet its goals, the MA CHS must advance those new heating measures to meet the state’s climate goals.

You can watch the full webinar below.

An Attempt to Enhance Energy Efficiency in Connecticut’s Underserved and Overburdened Communities, Community Expertise, and Climate Advocate Urges

In an area of the country with the oldest housing stock, the highest 25% of emitting homes make up a disproportionate amount – well over 50% – of the residential on-state climate emissions. High emitting homes in Connecticut are not likely weatherized and are more often located in low-income communities and communities of color. High-emitting housing units are also more likely to pose serious health risks. Hazards such as asbestos, mold, lead, vermiculite, and knob and tube wiring, among others, are substantial barriers to retrofitting and energy efficiency upgrades.

At the tail end of Connecticut’s 2023 legislative session, Connecticut’s General Assembly passed H.B. No. 6942. Sections 90 and 91 of H.B. No. 6942 set out the guidance to establish a $125M “Housing Environmental Improvement Revolving Loan Fund” through the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) in collaboration with the Connecticut Department of Housing. Effective July 1, 2024, $75M will be available in a to provide low-interest financing for retrofits projects of multifamily residences in environmental justice communities that improve energy efficiency and building shell weatherization. Potential projects include but are not limited to, the installation of heat pumps, solar power generating systems, improved roofing, doors, windows, and any electric system or wiring upgrades necessary for such retrofit. The pilot program(s) will also prioritize upgrades that include the remediation of health and safety concerns such as mold, vermiculite, asbestos, etc. They will prioritize upgrades on non-owner-occupied units and units where residents or prospective residents are low-income. H.B. No. 6942 calls attention to engaging residents and owners to assist with participation and implementation. This is especially important as Tenaya Taylor, Executive Director at Nonprofit Accountability Group wrote, “…when people do take the time to find out about energy efficiency programs, complete the burdensome paperwork and get in touch with and convince their landlords to sign off on an application, too often the promised upgrades do not materialize.”

A report by DEEP on the program’s success is expected by October 2027 and will provide any recommendations for a permanent program and any subsequent legislation. The pilot program(s) will run until September 30, 2028.

The pilot program(s) outlined in H.B. No. 6942 align with Acadia Center’s Next Generation Energy Efficiency challenge priorities which aim to address: 1) sub-standard housing quality, 2) climate mitigation, 3) clean heating and whole-house electrification, and 4) sustaining investments in efficiency. Acadia Center will continue collaborating with coalition partners, the Lamont Administration, and community leaders to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while accelerating energy justice.

The Housing Environmental Improvement Loan Fund is an important step towards improving energy efficiency in overburdened and underserved communities. Climate advocates around Connecticut are calling for urgent, collaborative, and transparent action to “reestablish Connecticut as a true climate leader.” Through this process, community knowledge and expertise must be supported, centered, and valued as “the fight for housing justice and the fight for energy justice are the same fight.” Acadia Center will continue to play an active role in advancing energy efficiency efforts in Connecticut while enhancing outreach and engagement efforts to drive action on climate and energy justice.

Op-Ed: A healthier, more affordable New Jersey starts inside our homes

Looking around over the past year, it’s clear that costs are up. Whether it’s the price of eggs, escalating rent or childcare costs, New Jersey families are feeling the pinch. The methane gas we use to heat our homes is not immune. In the past two years, gas rates have skyrocketed by 51% in New Jersey. While there are some things we can’t control as consumers, new research shows that we can save thousands each year while improving public health for our most vulnerable communities — and it starts inside our homes. 

New Jerseyans living in an average home could save as much as 41% on their annual energy bills by replacing gas stoves, furnaces and other household appliances with energy-efficient electric alternatives such as heat pumps and induction stoves, a new report from Acadia Center found. When paired with weatherization, such as better insulation, New Jersey households could cut their bills nearly in half. New Jerseyans who live in draftier housing stand to benefit the most. For the typical drafty house where upgrades are paired with weatherization, households could save anywhere from 47% to 69% each year, freeing up thousands of dollars for groceries, prescriptions, after-school care and other daily expenses.  

Adopting highly efficient electric appliances isn’t just good for your wallet, it’s better for your health. A growing — and alarming — body of research shows that the gas appliances we use for heating and cooking can release harmful pollutants like nitrogen dioxide inside our homes. Children with developing lungs are particularly vulnerable to indoor air pollution from gas appliances. One study found that kids who live in homes with gas stoves have a 42% higher risk of developing asthma symptoms, while another attributed gas stoves to 12.7% of childhood asthma cases across the U.S. Gas stoves have also been found to emit benzene, a cancer-causing chemical, at rates higher than having a smoker in the home. Researchers have found benzene leaking from gas stoves even when turned off.  

When vented outdoors, gas appliances are a main driver of outdoor air pollution. In New Jersey, buildings powered by fossil fuels contribute more than four times more outdoor nitrogen oxides (a precursor to smog) than electricity generation. While our state sees 250 premature deaths and $2.8 billion in health impacts each year from this pollution source, the impacts of air pollution are not borne equally. Black and brown communities often have higher exposure to this pollution, bearing the brunt of health impacts from fossil fuels. At the end of the day, switching to electric appliances isn’t just a cost-saving strategy — it’s an urgent matter of environmental justice and public health. 

Valuable rebates

Thanks to the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and other measures, New Jersey consumers will be able to save thousands when upgrading their homes to clean energy. Once the Board of Public Utilities creates programs to make this funding available, each low-income household in New Jersey can obtain specific rebates that include $8,000 for a new heat pump system, $4,000 for an electric panel upgrade and $2,500 for electric wiring.  

To ensure that hardworking New Jersey families can access millions in federal rebates, the BPU should direct electric utilities to quickly scale up programs that support heat pump adoption. The state should target adoption by 60,000 households each year and ensure that at least 40% are low- and moderate-income households. Utility programs should also support HVAC contractors and distributors as they prepare for faster adoption. In addition, BPU should launch a public education campaign to highlight that millions of dollars in federal rebates and tax incentives will flow to New Jersey as consumers adopt electric appliances.    

New Jersey already lags in the adoption of electric heat pumps compared to other Northeastern states. While New York and Massachusetts strive to maximize federal dollars flowing to households, without bold leadership from the BPU, New Jersey runs the risk of leaving millions on the table.  

For struggling New Jerseyans, a high utility bill can be devastating, but it doesn’t have to be that way. A cleaner — and less expensive — future is possible with just a few changes inside each home. It’s up to state leaders to deliver that healthier, more affordable future.  

To see the full op-ed from NJ Spotlight News, click here.