Blog Archives - Page 22 of 27

Acadia Center Set to Host Second Community Energy Forum

This month Acadia Center is having its second in a series of upcoming Community Energy Forums throughout New England. The forums highlight the release of the organization’s recent publication Community|EnergyVision and allow Acadia Center staff, along with other experts, to sit down with community members to discuss how they can take control of their energy costs and needs. The events will also focus on what attendees can do to foster community energy in their towns. The next forum will take place from 7 pm – 9 pm on March 21st in Westport, CT at the Town Hall Auditorium.

Two of the three forum panelists have close ties to the Westport area. Jonathan Steinberg is currently in his third term as State Representative for Westport and prior to that served in the town’s legislative body for seven years. Rep. Steinberg will share his experiences with attendees, particularly focusing on energy legislation in the town and the steps it will take to establish community energy projects there. Another panelist, Mark Robbins, is president of MHR Development, the company that designed and facilitated the renovation of Earthplace, a nature discovery and environmental learning center in Westport that is working to become net-zero. Robbins will describe his experiences developing community energy projects and the process and challenges he encountered.

Jamie Howland, Director of Acadia’s Climate and Energy Analysis Center in Hartford, will give an overview of our publication Community|EnergyVision. Following presentations from each of our panelists, we will open up the room for discussion tying Acadia Center’s ideas with what’s happening in Westport and the surrounding communities, in an effort to advance community energy throughout Connecticut .

For more information and to RSVP for the event click here.

Kiernan Dunlop is a Communications Associate in the the Boston office and brings experience in communications and environmental organizing. She has been a contributing writer for eco-RI News and the New Bedford Standard-Times. She supports Acadia Center’s communications efforts with press and media outreach, online and print content, events and other outreach strategies.

After Supreme Court’s Stay of the Clean Power Plan, RGGI Even More Crucial to New England’s Future

On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court took the unusual step of delaying implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan until legal challenges to the regulation are completed – a decision that effectively stops the regulation in its tracks until 2017 or later. A centerpiece of the Obama administration’s climate change policy, the Clean Power Plan (CPP) was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power plants to 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. In New England, compliance with the CPP was expected to come primarily through the states’ involvement in and strengthening of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI, a nine-state carbon trading program, has been in operation since 2009. The program’s success in reducing emissions while driving economic growth is reflected in the final version of the CPP, which encourages states to use a RGGI-like model.

While the CPP’s mandate is stayed, states are not required to move forward with planning for the substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions for the electric sector that it requires. But they should. As Acadia Center analysis shows, the 9 states involved in RGGI have reduced emissions and sent effective price signals to the electric sector in favor of carbon-free resources, while improving both public health and the economy. In the absence of the CPP – whether it’s temporary or permanent – state-led and regional initiatives like RGGI are even more crucial to ensuring that the US can meet its international obligations and national climate action plan, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve public health, and build the clean energy future. Fortunately, many states (CA, CT, IL, ME, MD, MA, NH, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, VA, WA, and counting) have pledged to continue working on plans to reduce GHG emissions from their power sectors despite the stay. States looking to take a proactive stance on climate can maximize their environmental impact while delivering economic benefits by following the subsequent best practices from RGGI’s seven years of experience:

Cover emissions from existing and new power plants;
Auction allowances, rather than give them away for free;
Invest auction revenue in energy efficiency; and
Set ambitious reduction goals.

Tuesday’s decision did not evaluate the merits of the Clean Power Plan or the question of whether the Environmental Protection Agency went beyond its granted authority under the Clean Air Act to issue such regulations. Review of those questions remains at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, who is expected to hear arguments on these issues in June. If that court upholds the rule, and the Supreme Court either denies further review or takes the case and upholds the rule itself, the stay can be lifted and the rule implemented. Until either of those things happen, though, formal CPP implementation is on hold. Moreover, given the pace of appellate court decisions, neither of those possibilities will happen until mid-2017 – well after we have a new President.

Which means it’s up to the states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions – again. In New England, we’re fortunate to have taken the lead on innovative efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve our economy and public health, and invest in a more-efficient low-carbon electric sector. While we wait for federal programs to be straightened out, we should encourage other states to take action against climate change by adopting the RGGI model.

Amy Boyd is Senior Attorney in Acadia Center’s Boston office. She works on energy, transportation and climate change issues in Massachusetts and regionally. Amy came to Acadia Center from Foley Hoag LLP in Boston where she had been an associate in the Environmental Practice Group & Administrative Department since 2006.

Jordan Stutt is a Policy Analyst in Acadia Center’s Boston office. He works on energy, transportation and climate change issues, with an emphasis on research and policy analysis for energy systems and carbon markets. He was an Energy Policy Analyst at Pace Energy and Climate Center, Pace University Law School in White Plains, NY, where he focused on energy efficiency and RGGI.

Acadia Center’s Year in Review

2015 was a good year for Acadia Center. New York Magazine, U.S. News & World Report, and MarketWatch included us in select 2015 lists of top charities making a difference and Charity Navigator once again included us on its list of “Top 10 Charities Worth Watching.” Our staff continued to provide tangible alternatives to an energy system based on fossil fuels and was quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, and the Hartford Courant among other media outlets as experts in our field. In case you missed them, here are some more Acadia Center highlights from 2015:

Expanding our Vision

In 2015, Acadia Center expanded our Vision series with the release of UtilityVision in February and Community|EnergyVision in December. The publications, which started with EnergyVision in 2014, outline a clear, compelling pathway to a low carbon future that offers lower energy costs and greater overall economic benefit. UtilityVision digs deeper into the world of regulatory change with a plan that will help reshape the electric power industry to level the playing field for efficiency and renewables, and provide incentives for clean energy. Community|EnergyVision identifies how exciting new energy technologies offer communities the power to have a cleaner, lower cost energy supply and greater control over energy decisions.

Getting our Ideas Out There

Peter Shattuck, Director of Acadia Center’s Massachusetts office and Clean Energy Initiative, wrote a three-part analysis series that was published in Commonwealth Magazine. The series influenced the public debate over whether billions of dollars should be spent on proposed energy infrastructure. Acadia Center effectively showed why the Northeast region does not need to invest in risky gas pipelines. We offered practical ideas for how the region can build a reliable, clean, lower cost and consumer friendly energy future. Shattuck went on to serve on an Advisory Group for the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office along with representatives from utilities, the natural gas industry, and clean energy and consumer groups.

Implementing Change

Acadia Center co-led a successful legislative campaign with the CT Roundtable on Climate & Jobs to put in place new requirements for utility regulators that should reduce the currently excessive fixed charges paid by all residential customers. The fixed charge – sometimes called the customer service charge – is a monthly flat minimum fee that customers must pay to have access to electricity. High fixed charges disproportionately burden low income customers and interfere with energy efficiency and clean energy investments. Connecticut utilities Eversource Energy and United Illuminating have the two highest residential fixed charges of any major electric utility in New England.

The legislative remedy passed by Connecticut’s General Assembly during its 2015 special session should reduce these high fixed charges to historically reasonable amounts – likely less than $10 per month. Once applied in the next rate case for each utility, the new law will give over a million residential customers increased control over their electricity costs. Acadia Center intends to participate in those rate cases to ensure that this new consumer protection is properly applied.

Providing the Facts

The staff in Acadia’s CLEAN Center used our extensive energy and climate database to create the Value of Solar series, which shows why solar energy offers great consumer value and outlines the specific benefits realized in various states. CLEAN Center work also rebutted regressive claims, and helped us successfully beat back a proposal by the region’s largest utility that would have raised consumer costs in a manner that would have greatly limited energy efficiency and clean energy choices.

These are only a few of Acadia Center’s accomplishments in 2015 and we hope to continue our progress advancing a clean energy future in 2016.

Bill Dornbos is the Director of the Connecticut Office and Senior Attorney for Acadia Center. Bill focuses on advancing policy and regulatory solutions that seek to transform the energy system and move Connecticut towards a climate-safe, sustainable future. Recent work includes advocating for expanded investment in cost-effective energy efficiency for all fuels and analyzing greenhouse gas emissions trends in the Northeast

The Supreme Court Gives a Big Win to Energy Conservation and the Environment

Good news for everyone who likes clean energy, lower electric prices, and more local control of energy sources! A US Supreme Court decision on Monday upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)’s Order 745, concluding that wholesale demand response programs are within FERC’s jurisdiction. In a 6-2 decision, the Court confirmed that grid operators can do more to promote cleaner alternatives to simply building more power plants – saving consumers money, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and preventing blackouts.

A bit of background: in 2011, the FERC put out an order to promote “demand response,” which pays big energy users and groups of smaller consumers to cut their consumption during critical peak hours. This means the grid operators do not need to call upon the most expensive and dirtiest peaking generators to make more power. Because demand response is playing the same role as generation in this market, the FERC rule dictated that demand response should be paid in the same way as generation. Since this saves a lot of money in energy costs, reduces the need to build power plants and transmission lines, and helps the grid stay reliable and stable, it all seems like a great idea, right?

Only if it’s legal. Opponents of the rule, including industry groups for the power generators argued that the rule was unfair and, more importantly, beyond FERC’s jurisdiction. In a nutshell, the Federal Power Act divides authority over electricity sales between wholesale (FERC-jurisdiction) markets and retail (state jurisdiction) markets. The DC Circuit determined in May 2014 that because demand response made retail customers change their behavior, by dictating what participants in demand response programs were paid, FERC had overstepped their jurisdictional limits to regulate states’ retail markets.

Monday, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that when FERC regulates what takes place on the wholesale market, and works to improve how that market runs, their action is jurisdictional, no matter the effect on retail rates. Since Order 745 regulated bids in the wholesale market and the prices paid by the wholesale market, it stands firmly in FERC’s jurisdiction.

This decision came as a surprise to many who had predicted a 4-4 split, which would allow the DC Circuit decision to stand. But by supporting demand response and FERC’s jurisdiction, the Supreme Court potentially paves the way to grid operators being able to offer even farther ranging programs to support a clean, efficient grid and the environmental benefits that come with it.

Update: National Grid Pulls Rate Reform Proposal in Rhode Island

In a sudden turn of events, last week National Grid submitted an unopposed motion to the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission to withdraw its distribution rate reform proposal. The utility had been required by legislation to identify potential rate reforms in light of the increasing amount of distributed generation, like solar photovoltaics (PV), that will be connected to the grid. In July 2015, National Grid submitted a proposal – summarized here – that included a tiered customer charge for residential and small commercial and industrial customers and an access fee for standalone distributed generation.

The proposal was roundly rejected by intervenors in the proceeding. The Division of Public Utilities and Carriers (the State’s ratepayer advocate) and thirteen other parties collectively had seventeen expert witnesses testifying against the rate reforms proposed by National Grid. (An overview of Acadia Center’s concerns and why withdrawing the proposal is a good thing is available here.) This lack of support and the parties’ interest in a more comprehensive discussion regarding rate reform were cited in the utility’s motion as reasons for withdrawing its proposal.

On January 19, the Commission unanimously approved National Grid’s motion. They concluded that all requirements under the law have been met and decided not to approve any new rates at this time. However, Chairperson Margaret Curran noted that the electricity system is expected to change in the coming years and this is just the beginning of the conversation. As such, the Commission will open one or more dockets by February 25, 2016 to review the changing distribution system.

While National Grid’s decision to walk away from its proposed reforms is a victory for Rhode Island, it is unclear what this means for Massachusetts. The utility has made a similar tiered customer charge and access fee proposal in that state; however, the significant opposition faced in Rhode Island may give them pause for thought. Public hearings will be held across Massachusetts starting in mid-March.

Leslie Malone is a Senior Analyst, Climate & Energy and Canada Project Director working from Acadia Center’s Providence office. She works on distributed and large-scale renewable energy and transmission policy as well as energy efficiency and carbon pricing issues in the U.S. and Canada.

What do we want? Rate Reform! When do we want it? Not in this docket: Distribution Rate Reform in Rhode Island

Over a dozen parties, including Acadia Center, have intervened in a proceeding currently before the Rhode Island Public Utility Commission (Docket No. 4568). The issue at hand is a new electric rate structure proposed by National Grid.

Under legislation passed in 2014, National Grid was required to identify potential rate reforms in light of the increasing amount of distributed generation, like solar photovoltaics (PV), that will be connected to the grid. The scope of National Grid’s proposal was limited by the legislation to only one component of our electricity bills – distribution rates – and the utility could not propose reforms that would require additional expenditure, like advanced metering. Unfortunately, these restrictions have narrowed the conversation and we are now discussing incremental change that may in fact be regressive.

Rhode Island is emerging as a leader in grid modernization efforts. It has a good foundation of existing policies and processes, which the Systems Integration Rhode Island (SIRI) working group mapped out in a recently released report. National Grid’s DemandLink pilot in Tiverton and Little Compton and the RI Office of Energy Resources’ Solarize program are great examples of using new technology, energy efficiency, and distributed resources to avoid more costly investments in traditional infrastructure.

Now how do we capitalize on the learning to date and make the electric grid and energy system as a whole more dynamic, clean, and responsive to consumers? How do we more accurately value and compensate distributed generation for the benefits they provide while ensuring that they pay for the services they get from the grid? That is the conversation we should be having, but instead we are butting heads over a tiered customer charge for residential and small commercial and industrial customers and an access fee for standalone generators (National Grid’s rate reform proposal is summarized here).

Acadia Center’s concerns and arguments against the proposal are laid out in Dr. Abigail Anthony’s testimony on the tiered customer charge and access fee and her rebuttal testimony filed last week. The gist is that:

National Grid is only considering the costs of distributed generation. The benefits should also be included.
The tiered customer charge is confusing and customers will not be given enough information or technological tools to understand and manage their electricity consumption.
High customer charges and low variable charges reduce the value of energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy investments.
It is hard to see how the proposed rate design will help reduce the overall costs of the energy system.
The renewable energy access fee is not based on thorough analysis of costs and benefits.

Acadia Center has recommended that the Commission reject National Grid’s proposal. There needs to be a better understanding of the costs and benefits of distributed generation, and how those customers should be compensated. Evaluating the potential costs and benefits of new metering technology will also help in developing long-term rate design that actually advances the state’s energy vision.

Hearings in this proceeding get underway on January 19, 2016.

Summary of National Grid’s Distribution Rate Reform Proposal in Rhode Island

Legislation passed in 2014 required the Public Utility Commission to open a docket by July 1, 2015 to consider rate design and distribution cost allocation in light of the increasing amount of distributed generation, like solar photovoltaics (PV),that will be connected to the grid. Only reforms to distribution rates are being considered and National Grid was required to file a revenue-neutral proposal, meaning they could not propose a rate design that requires new investment in, for example, advanced metering.

National Grid submitted a proposal that includes: 1) a tiered customer charge for residential and small commercial and industrial (C&I) customers; 2) an access fee for standalone distributed generation; and, 3) a merger of the two larger industrial rate classes. Acadia Center let the US Navy and Walmart take on the rate class merger issue and focused our testimony on the first two issues.

Tiered Customer Charges

Residential and small C&I customers in Rhode Island currently pay a customer charge on their electricity bills to cover meter reading, billing, etc. Regardless of the amount of power you use in a given month that cost is always on the bill.

National Grid has proposed moving from a uniform customer charge to tiered customer charges based on monthly usage (kWh). For residential customers the customer charge would range from $5.25/month (Tier 1) to $18.00/month (Tier 4) compared to the current charge of $5.00/month. For small commercial and industrial customers the fixed customer charge would range from $10.50/month (Tier 1) to $26.00/month (Tier 4) compared to the current $10.00/month.

In practice this means that if you use more electricity in a given month (think heat wave in July) then you may be placed in a higher tier with a higher fixed customer charge. If you move up a tier then you get locked in at that higher level for the next 12 months. This obviously has implications for all customers but it is particularly worrying for customers that use electricity for heating – typically renters and low-income customers. The proposal could also penalize customers that install electric heat pumps or own electric vehicles.

Also, since this is a revenue-neutral proposal, increasing the amount of revenue collected through fixed charges leads to a corresponding decrease in the variable distribution rate, which has negative implications for energy efficiency and net metering credits by making energy savings and credits less valuable.

Access Fee

National Grid has proposed a monthly access fee for all “stand-alone distributed generation,” defined as generation connected to the distribution system that does not have on-site load. In other words, virtual or community net metering projects.

The access fee is $5.00 per kW-month for projects connected to the distribution system at primary voltage and $7.25 per kW-month for projects connected at the secondary voltage level. These fees are adjusted by a technology-specific “capacity availability factor” of 40% for solar, 30% for wind, 10% for hydro, and 40% for anaerobic digestion.

Ultimately, the access fee proposal discourages stand-alone distributed generation by imposing additional hurdles on municipalities and farms. It also fails to take into account the benefits of distributed resources.

National Grid has made a similar tiered customer charge and access fee proposal in Massachusetts. In both these states we should be encouraging more innovative analysis and reforms that have the potential to advance a clean energy future.

Community Energy Proving Successful in Boothbay

A few hundred hours a year during the hottest afternoons in the summer months, when air conditioning is operating at full blast, Maine’s Boothbay peninsula comes close to critically straining the area’s electricity transmission lines. One option to avoid potential power outages was an $18 million upgrade of existing transmission lines so they could handle peak demand. But several years ago the Maine Public Utilities Commission instead approved an innovative pilot project that flips the conventional transmission solution around: meeting demand by generating power and improving energy efficiency right in Boothbay. The Boothbay Smart Grid Reliability Project is now fully operational and is proving that local energy resources can provide electrical services traditionally delivered by utilities.

The Boothbay pilot is first of its kind in Maine, and one of several “non-transmission alternatives” (NTA) pilots in the Northeast. NTAs can include local energy resources like energy efficiency, demand response, smart grid technologies, and small scale, clean distributed generation. Adopted alone or in combination, they can replace or defer the need for new transmission lines. In this way, NTAs also address concerns over the land use impacts of new lines. Contracted by the Maine Public Utilities Commission to oversee the pilot, GridSolar, LLC has positioned a total of 1,677 kilowatts of NTAs on the Boothbay Peninsular and is able to activate these resources as necessary to reduce stress on the grid and ensure grid reliability. The pilot includes five categories of NTAs: energy efficiency (243 kW), solar photovoltaics (PV) (308 kW), back-up generation (500 kW), demand response and peak load shifting (252 kW), and energy storage (500 kW). From its control center in Portland, GridSolar can dispatch these resources within 5 minutes to reduce the amount of power imported into Boothbay during peak hours.

The cost of the Boothbay Pilot Project is less than one-third of the $18 million estimated cost of the transmission line originally proposed by Central Maine Power. GridSolar estimates that the total savings to Maine ratepayers will be greater than $12 million. The long sprawling fingers of the Boothbay Peninsula make it particularly expensive to build transmission lines, improving the economics of the pilot project.

Boothbay_Harbor_in_Summer

Boothbay Harbor, Maine

Despite the compelling economics of the Boothbay pilot, widespread use of NTAs faces several obstacles. Financial incentives are skewed in favor of transmission companies, which can earn a higher rate of return (13%) to build transmission lines than to invest in cleaner, lower cost options. In New England, the costs of paying for transmission projects are spread across all 6 states, while lower cost local options are rarely considered and not eligible for this type of regional cost recovery.

Maine is on the leading edge of changing the system to level the playing field for local energy resources, and various stakeholders are taking steps to change traditional ideas about the power grid and provide a different view of how to solve the state’s energy challenges. In October 2015, the Maine PUC proposed hiring a competitively-selected, independent NTA Coordinator that would be responsible for working with the transmission and distribution utility to identify and analyze NTA opportunities, pursue solutions, solicit and select proposals, and operate NTA resources. The PUC also proposed establishing an NTA Advisory Group that would review 10 year distribution and transmission plans and report back to the Commission. In December the PUC announced that it will continue to advance the concept of the NTA Coordinator in an adjudicatory proceeding. The Commission has also started analyzing whether NTAs can be used to address reliability needs in Maine’s Mid-Coast region.

Maine’s experience demonstrates that opening up the existing utility system to market forces can accelerate NTA integration, growth, completion, and innovation- all to the benefit of Maine ratepayers. The model of building very costly transmission infrastructure for brief periods of peak demand should not survive forever. States across the Northeast are asking utilities to actively incorporate clean, low cost local energy resources into their power grid planning, but reforming utilities’ financial incentives will be necessary to see widespread change.

Abigail Anthony leads Acadia Center’s Grid Modernization and Utility Reform initiative, focusing on changing regulatory and economic incentives in order to achieve a sustainable and consumer-friendly energy system. A Rhode Island native, Abigail is director of the Providence office and has played a leading role in advancing the state’s energy efficiency procurement policies.

New Hampshire Has the Opportunity to Improve Low Energy Efficiency Ranking

Expanding energy efficiency for electric and natural gas customers will deliver multiple benefits to New Hampshire. For customers, efficiency investments lower utility bills now and in the future, improve comfort, health and safety, and provide them with more control and understanding of their energy use. For the electric grid, efficiency increases reliability and decreases outages, and delays or avoids the need to spend significant funds on new capacity. For the local economy, these investments create local jobs, give businesses a competitive edge, and lower energy prices for all. And for the environment, efficiency reduces air pollution, water use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Indeed, energy efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest, most plentiful energy resource in the state.Investing in energy efficiency saves money in the long-term, but there are many market barriers which prevent consumers from doing it on their own. While New Hampshire’s utility-run efficiency programs have provided a host of benefits to residents, it is falling increasingly behind it neighbors. New Hampshire ranked #20 on the 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, released October 22nd by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a national nonpartisan organization. While the state is up two places since last year, it still ranks well below its neighbors in New England – Massachusetts (#1), Vermont (#3), Rhode Island, (#4) Connecticut (#6), and Maine (#14).

So where can New Hampshire begin to gain ground and reap increased benefits from investing in efficiency? Here are two suggestions for (nearly) immediate gains:

Energy Efficiency Resource Standard

Currently New Hampshire is the only state in New England without a formal efficiency savings goal, which is one key reason why the state’s efficiency savings are well below its neighbors. The Public Utilities Commission is currently undergoing a process to establish an Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS) in the state. Utilities and other stakeholders have filed proposals this month for how such a standard might be structured and funded, with the goal of finalizing it this spring. The PUC is on the right track, but for the EERS to prove successful it must contain a clear and ambitious goal for energy savings to ensure all New Hampshire residents get adequate help in reducing their energy use.

Building Energy Codes

Putting in place modern building energy codes is crucial because it ensures that new buildings start off highly efficient. It is a lot easier to build efficient buildings than to retrofit inefficient ones down the road. New Hampshire adopted the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), a leading model energy code for new residential and commercial construction. Unfortunately it did not implement them in 2012, as most leading states did. If the 2012 IECC were already in place, it would not only have earned a full point under ACEEE’s scoring, but also would have locked in major energy savings as all new construction would have had to comply with this more stringent code level for the last three years. The New Hampshire Building Code Review Board is in the process of reviewing the 2015 IECC, and has held a public hearing. If accepted, the amendments would be effective for a maximum of two years unless ratified by the legislature.

Making smart decisions now will help New Hampshire keep more money in the state and in the pockets of its residents.

Ellen Hawes is a senior analyst at Acadia Center focusing on energy systems, land use and carbon markets. She also leads Acadia Center’s participation in the New Hampshire State Energy Strategy process. Ellen received her Master in Forestry from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Remaking Connecticut’s Energy System to Embrace Community Energy

As we head into another winter that could once again hit Connecticut residents and communities with high energy costs, the urgency to remake our energy system only increases. With emerging technologies and approaches, a new and better system is possible.

To become a reality, though, this better energy system will need to empower communities with innovative, on-the-ground energy solutions. So, how do we make sure that the current clean energy revolution puts Connecticut’s communities at its center?

Acadia Center’s event next Wednesday, December 16th, “Remaking Connecticut’s Energy System to Embrace Community Energy” will explore that question.

The gathering will feature an expert discussion on how communities can take control of their energy costs and needs through new approaches and policy innovations. Our panelists will be:

Scudder Parker, Senior Policy Advisor, Vermont Energy Investment Corporation

Jonathan Glass, President & Co-Founder, Wise Labs

Jamie Howland, Director, Energy Efficiency and Demand-Side Initiative, Acadia Center

Select topics will include: creating a sustainable energy utility to better serve community energy needs, exploring the community benefits offered by smart LED streetlights, and identifying notable community energy trends and developments in Connecticut and beyond.

We will also be releasing our new report, Community EnergyVision, which identifies four key areas of reform needed to spur the growth of local, clean energy resources. Community EnergyVision also identifies exemplary projects, practices, and innovations that should be replicated in Connecticut.

This discussion will be followed by breakout groups of attendees to further explore specific issues in depth. We hope you’ll join us.

When
Wednesday, December 16 10:30 AM – 12:30 PM

Where
New Haven Free Public Library
133 Elm Street
New Haven, CT 06510

We encourage you to use public transportation, but metered street parking and parking garages are available.

Parking Garages within a half mile of the event:

Grove Street Garage, 65 Grove Street
State Street Garage, 290 State Street

RSVP
If you plan to come, please register in advance on our Eventbrite page because space is limited. The event is free and all are welcome to attend.

About

Areas Of Focus

Where We Work

Get Involved

Resources

Latest