Wind Energy is Needed for Electrifying our Economy

Recent disputes between offshore wind operators and Massachusetts regulators highlight how our clean energy future is far from guaranteed. The two projects in dispute, Commonwealth Wind and SouthCoast Wind (formerly Mayflower Wind), together with Vineyard Wind Project 1, make up 3.2 gigawatts of offshore wind energy Massachusetts has planned for 2030. These offshore wind projects are essential to decarbonizing our electric grid and meeting the growing demands of key sectors, such as electric vehicles and heating buildings.

Fossil gas utilities, however, are asking regulators to use new wind projects to create green hydrogen as a heating fuel to replace fossil (natural) gas. But the data is clear; using renewable electricity directly – for example in heat pumps or electric cars – will always be more efficient than using that same electricity to produce hydrogen and pipe that hydrogen through the leaky gas distribution system. It’s a matter of physics. If regulators allow gas utilities to use renewable energy to produce green hydrogen to heat Massachusetts buildings, utilities will hijack our offshore wind energy resources and/or other sources of clean electricity, endangering our climate goals.

Buildings generate 27 percent of Massachusetts greenhouse gas emissions, one of the largest sources of emissions in the Commonwealth. In 2020, then-Attorney General Maura Healey urged the Department of Public Utilities  to open a “Future of Gas” investigation to determine how we can rapidly decarbonize our buildings sector. The result of this utility-led process is not surprising, but also not a low-emissions or low-cost solution. Gas utilities assert the need to continue using their pipelines (replacing some and building more) to distribute a blend of green hydrogen and “renewable natural gas” as an alternative to using electric heat pumps to heat our homes and other buildings.

The gas utilities claim that using this blended gas for heating would reduce demand for electricity, compared with switching to electric heat pumps. As they have provided little or no evidence to support this, we investigated two simple questions:

• If gas utilities rely on green hydrogen, made using renewable electricity to convert water into hydrogen with electrolysis, how much renewable electricity would be needed?
• How much renewable electricity would be necessary to provide the same amount of heat to homes and other buildings using heat pumps, as proposed by the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2050?

Our finding disqualifies the use of green hydrogen for heat, without even considering the myriad issues of climate impacts, cost, equity, health, and safety that also should disqualify using green hydrogen to heat buildings.

We found that a 20 percent volume blend of green hydrogen (which would only replace 7 percent of the total gas) in the fossil gas distributed in Massachusetts would use 3.4 times as much electricity as heat pumps. While Massachusetts utilities have procured only 3.2 gigawatts of the mandated 5.6 gigawatt offshore wind by 2027, about 3.9 gigawatts would be needed to produce enough green hydrogen for this 20 percent blend. Thus, producing sufficient green hydrogen to satisfy the utilities’ plans to add it to the gas pipelines would deplete limited renewable energy and derail our efforts to decarbonize the electric grid.

Gordon Richardson has worked as an independent consultant, a consultant with Arthur D. Little, and as chief engineer at Houston-based Eastman Whipstock Inc. He is the coauthor of a report on green hydrogen production for Gas Transition Allies.  Ben Butterworth is the director of climate, energy, and equity analysis at the Acadia Center.

To read this article in Commonwealth Magazine, click here.

Correcting the record on decarbonization

A RECENT COMMENTARY,  “Decarbonization road map has some gaping holes” by Arnold J. Wallenstein, argues that Massachusetts must scale back its efforts to decarbonize its energy system. Unfortunately, the piece relies upon incomplete assumptions while making glaring omissions about the viability of clean energy. It glosses over the health, climate, and economic burdens imposed by our current outdated energy system, and it ignores that the transition to clean energy is well underway both regionally and nationally.

The energy system in Massachusetts is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Nearly 50 percent of our electricity is produced by fossil gas. Over 80 percent of our homes and businesses are heated by fossil fuels. And fossil fuels do not produce a reliable system. Whenever a winter storm or a hot summer day arrives, we all cringe in anticipation of whether the power will stay on. Fossil fuels are expensive, too. Electricity rates just increased by 64% percent  in some areas of the state. Other states, such as New Hampshire, saw increases as high as 112 percent. Volatile energy prices come baked into the cake with fossil fuels, as anyone purchasing heating oil or propane this winter knows from seeing prices double.

Additionally, fossil fuels cause poor indoor air quality, damaging the health of the most vulnerable among us – children and the elderly – particularly those in lower income communities and communities of color. That’s not even counting their contribution to catastrophic climate change. And we’re shipping billions of dollars out of state each year for the privilege of unreliability, volatile prices, health problems, and climate destruction.

The good news is that clean energy technologies are market ready, cost-effective, local, healthier, cheaper to operate, and more reliable. For these reasons, the movement towards a wholesale turnover in power generation and heating and consumption technologies is well underway in our region.

Fortunately, Gov. Maura Healey understands the importance of addressing our existential climate threat – for instance, rising oceans and storm damage are a serious concern for Massachusetts – and seizing the economic opportunities presented by localizing our energy production sector, particularly for moderate- and low- income households. In her inauguration speech, she committed at least 1 percent of the state budget to environmental and energy agencies, and she has now followed through with $534 million in her first budget. She promised to triple the budget for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and to create a Green Bank to foster investment in resilient infrastructure. She has talked about an investment in the climate economy similar to the $1 billion investment former governor Deval Patrick once made in the growing biotech industry. Former governor Charlie Baker sought to make a similar investment during his final year in office.

Healey also pledged to double offshore wind and solar targets, quadruple energy storage deployment, and put a million electric vehicles on the road by 2030. Importantly, Massachusetts’ neighbors are, in some cases, making more aggressive commitments, like Rhode Island’s mandate to have 100 percent renewables by 2033, or New Jersey’s brand-new commitment to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035. Wallenstein fails to make reference to these goals – including, most importantly, the governor’s urgency to tackle these issues. Recycling 10-year-old talking points to turn the clock back 10 years is not a vision for the future.

Across the country, renewables accounted for 22 percent of the total electricity generation in 2022 and are projected to rise to 24 percent in 2023. From Q3 2020 through Q2 of 2022, the US added 63.2 gigawatts of new wind and solar power generating capacity against only 10.4 gigawatts for gas (and none for coal). And with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, tax incentives are now in place to drastically increase the pace of renewable energy adoption. In fact, it is now less expensive to operate solar and wind electricity generation than most fossil fuels.

This makes sense as wind and/or solar energy are already the cheapest power source for two-thirds of the people in the world, including the US (and New England), where solar is our cheapest power source. All grid-scale clean energy projects enter our power grid via a competitive bidding process, one in which clean energy generators are forced to increase their bid prices to keep fossil fuel operators competitive. There are no “undisclosed” costs. Once clean operators deliver their projects, they will supply electricity for fixed rates.

Wallenstein included numerous false statements about the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap in his piece. While there are too many falsehoods to dissect each one in detail, one particularly egregious statement in his piece stood out: “Unbelievably, there is no cost analysis to be found in the 2050 Decarbonization Road Map.” In-depth cost analysis is actually one of the central pillars upon which the Roadmap was built. In fact, Section 5.6 of the Energy Pathways to Deep Decarbonization portion of the Roadmap is quite simply titled “Cost.”

The sophisticated modeling that is core to the Roadmap examined the costs of nine different paths, and specifically answers the question: “Under the most likely assumptions, what is the least-cost deployment of energy system technologies that achieves deep decarbonization?” The most cost-effective pathway shows that, by 2050, fossil fuel generation accounts for less than 1 percent of electricity supplied to Massachusetts while over 90 percent of building space and water heating utilize consumer and climate friendly electric heat pumps. Reading the Roadmap closely, for 0.25 percent of the state’s total annual economic output we can take the most cost-effective path to net zero emissions instead of just watching the world burn.

Massachusetts also has among the greatest offshore wind power potential of any state in the nation. According to the National Research Energy Laboratory, Massachusetts can produce 1,050 terawatt hours (TWh) per year of electricity. That far exceeds both Massachusetts’ current consumption of 56 TWh per year and the laboratory’s projection of future needs after widespread electrification of 140 TWh. The business case for embracing our most affordable and most plentiful local resources is fairly obvious.

Wallenstein’s piece also trotted out an old canard about how the sun doesn’t always shine or the wind doesn’t blow as an argument to hold on to our dirty fossil fuel system. However, his piece curiously ignores clean energy options that balance wind and solar, such as the increasing prevalence of battery storage. California increased its battery storage capacity from 0.25 gigawatts to 3.2 gigawatts from 2020 to 2022, and that new storage played a critical role in keeping the state’s power on during this past summer’s extreme heat waves. Massachusetts is seeing storage projects move forward: Eversource has installed a 25 megawatt battery in Provincetown, designed to improve power reliability for the Outer Cape.

Long-duration batteries are just around the corner. Somerville-based Form Energy is opening a factory space in West Virginia that in 2024 will start producing 100-hour, 500 megawatt batteries that rely on iron – the most abundant metal on earth. This doesn’t even touch on other options, like better coordinating our grid with clean energy from neighboring systems. There are clean energy answers for how to improve reliability that don’t require an endless reliance on climate-destroying fossil fuels.

And let’s be clear: our fossil fuel-based system is not exactly reliable. At the end of 2022, New England suffered a two-day cold snap that left hundreds of thousands without power, since dubbed “The Nightmare Before Christmas.” The cause of the outages was predominantly a failure of fossil fuel operators to fire on demand. New England’s own grid operator issues annual winter outage warnings and insists significant investment must be made to improve the reliability of its own system. At the most recent such proclamation, Rebecca Tepper, now Massachusetts’ secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said, “We are overly dependent on natural gas. And the region is at risk any time that we have some kind of disruption on that system.”

Everyone involved agrees we will need to spend money to improve our energy system, particularly the grid that distributes that power. The question is where we are going to spend those citizen dollars. We can spend them on leveraging clean and affordable energy from local sources rather than subsidize expensive, unhealthy and not-too-reliable fossil fuel infrastructure. It seems like an easy choice.

It took decades to build our reliance on fossil fuels and it will take some time to wean off of it. Fully modernizing our system with clean electricity and converting our transportation and building heating/cooling systems to clean energy will not happen overnight. Eventually existing fossil fuel companies will need to find new ways to earn revenue. We invite them to join the momentum heading in that direction. Massachusetts’ most important goal now is to unite towards modernizing its energy system to benefit all the people of the state, not cling on to an increasingly outdated system that no longer can meet the needs of the public.

Joe Curtatone is the president of the Northeast Clean Energy Council, Daniel Sosland is president of Acadia Center, and Larry Chretien is executive director of the Green Energy Consumers Alliance. To read this article in Commonwealth Magazine, click here.

The Nightmare Before Christmas

Have you looked at your electric bill lately? If you live in New England, your rates for this winter are likely to be higher than ever. In the past, Acadia Center has highlighted that this spike in prices is very likely due to our grid’s overreliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. And this week, there’s a report from Sierra Club and Strategen that confirms gas to be the culprit. What’s more, it shows that over the long term, the most effective way to protect customers from price spikes (and the climate and health damaging pollution fossil fuels create) is to transition New England’s generation to clean energy resources.

We have also seen a lot of recent information that pokes holes in the assumption that fossil fuels are more reliable than clean energy in the winter. One such example comes from Christmas Eve, 2022. As you may recall, our region was dealing with an arctic blast (itself an increasingly common phenomenon caused by climate change). Although the grid as a whole fared pretty well (the lights stayed on!), fossil fuel plants appear to have fared alarmingly poorly. And it’s not just New England – PJM, the power grid that runs from North Carolina to Chicago saw fossil fuel-fired plants fail to perform while wind provided three times as much power as planned.

In New England, the electric grid is managed by ISO-New England (ISO-NE), which operates under a mandate to maintain reliable electric service in the six state region. On a ‘normal’ winter day, the real time energy market (which you can follow on the ISO to Go app) shows prices under $100/MWh. On December 24th, though, at the peak hour, the real time energy prices in the ISO-NE energy market spiked to over $2,800/MWh, a shocking sign that things weren’t normal. When a number of generators (who we now know to be fossil fuel-fired) that had committed to run instead no-showed, ISO-NE instituted some of its emergency procedures. Stopping short of asking consumers to voluntarily conserve energy, ISO-NE ordered all of the units that were capable of coming online quickly enough to meet the peak energy demand between 4 and 6 PM, to start running. They did, there was enough energy, and, most importantly, the power stayed on. The plants who “no-showed” have to pay penalties of around $39M, all of which goes to the plants who came to the rescue under ISO-NE’s Pay for Performance rules.

So what happened? And what can we learn from it for future winter storms? ISO-NE released a report on the Christmas Eve event that found that around 2,275 MW of generating capacity (over 1/8 of the peak load that day) that was expected to be available for the peak hour became unavailable for a number of reasons. The data released by ISO-NE so far show that at least 90% of these facilities burned fossil fuels – 33% were dual fuel generators (oil & gas); 29% residual fuel oil; 15% natural gas-only generators; and 13% were distillate fuel oil generators. ISO-NE reports that 65% of these reductions were due to mechanical problems like stuck valves and fuel pump failures – these mechanical issues could be coincidental, but the magnitude raises some questions about whether those facilities are prepared for the cold winter temperatures. Regardless of the reason these facilities weren’t online when needed, it drives a hole in ISO-NE’s conclusion that fossil fuel plants are always more reliable and need to be maintained through the rise of renewable energy.

In the past, ISO-NE’s warnings about potential issues in the winter called for needing more gas. Acadia Center has pointed out the fallacy of this argument – New England’s overreliance on gas for both the majority of our electricity generation and heating of buildings creates a risk of blackouts when there is not enough gas to go around or when international instability spikes prices. The solution to that is not doubling down on gas – it’s diversifying our resource mix, making better use of flexible demand and demand response, and adding more renewable energy, where the fuel is free.

In Acadia Center’s estimation, four reforms could help avoid crises like this in the future:

• Diversify the resources and bulk up demand response programs: As Acadia Center and its partners outlined in our Winter Reliability white paper, residential, commercial and industrial, and energy efficiency programs provide controllable demand that can help keep the grid reliable in real time. A balanced portfolio of complementary renewables like wind and solar can displace fossil fuels, and adding battery storage in stacked form, can allow us to move way from our gas overreliance now, even while we wait for long-duration storage that can outlast a winter storm on one battery.
• Coordinate to build the transmission needed to bring renewables: although the New England states have individually made commitments to decarbonizing their power and entering into procurements of renewables, the lack of a coordinated regional approach to building transmission is keeping these large scale hydro, wind, and offshore wind projects from coming online. Hopefully 2023 will bring more regional coordination (and, dare we wish, help from ISO-NE?) to work with affected communities to build the necessary transmission.
• Make gas plants buy on firm contracts, or at least reflect their capacity rating to show they’re taking the risk of no fuel: in the past, ISO-NE has offered to pay certain generators to enter into firm contracts (which get first priority for the gas), rather than relying on the spot market. But such contracts are expensive, and many generators (particularly dual fuel) opt to only use gas when it’s most affordable. But, as Christmas Eve showed, such business decisions can affect the whole grid. The capacity rating for renewable energy is often lowered to reflect the intermittent nature – the risks of fossil fuels should be reflected, too.
• Reform ISO-NE governance so consumers have more of a say in decisions that impact our air, our economy, and our family budgets: for the Northeast to achieve its climate goals and capture the many benefits of clean energy resources, the rules and priorities that govern the regional electricity system must change. Through analysis, public education, and coalition engagement like with our partners in Fix the Grid, Acadia Center is driving efforts to give consumers a voice within ISO-NE.

Acadia Center is working with our coalition partners to promote these reforms at ISO-NE and NEPOOL (the stakeholder body for ISO-NE) and in public engagement and bringing to consumers information about ISO-NE and how it impacts your life and wallet.

Exciting Maine Offshore Wind Roadmap Released Today by Governor Mills’ Energy Office

Maine has announced  a plan to harness offshore wind is doubly exciting and promising, both for addressing climate change and taking advantage of an economic opportunity that only comes along once in a generation. The Roadmap is a result of the dedicated efforts of Maine’s Governor, the Maine Climate Council, the State Legislature, and many others. Offshore wind could become one of Maine’s leading industries, providing jobs to laborers, engineers, electricians, constructions experts and a host of other jobs yet to be developed. Maine is a world leader in developing offshore floating wind turbines, and the future is bright with promise.

But Maine’s Offshore Wind Map plan is not a gold rush toward wind power. Instead, it is designed to protect Maine’s existing fisheries and wildlife habitats. The roadmap won’t be accomplished behind closed doors, but out in the open as part of an effort to include all stakeholders. All of Maine’s people must rise on the tide of economic and environmental benefits: rural communities, labor, indigenous peoples, and those who are economically disadvantaged.

The Roadmap sets a specific timeline from 2023 and beyond to accomplish various tasks, from a procurement project to fulfill a percentage of Maine’s electricity needs to permitting and leasing. All to further and complete Maine’s offshore wind goals.

Acadia Center is dedicated to using its expertise to promote clean, efficient energy now and in the future, and we welcome the fantastic commitment Maine has made to climate matters generally, to promoting Maine’s abundant offshore wind resource, and for providing a Roadmap to achieving the goal of harnessing offshore wind.

2023 Key Opportunities Webinar Summary

In Acadia Center’s most recent webinar, we discussed the most impactful work we undertook in 2023 and some of the projects in 2023 we believe will have the greatest effect in the fight for a livable climate and a stronger, more equitable economy.

First to present was Amy Boyd, Vice President of Climate & Clean Energy Policy. She highlighted many of the ways our work in 2022 sets us up for the work we are now pursuing in 2023. She broke down the major accomplishments Acadia Center achieved in 2022 by our 3 core themes: Research, Advocate, Implement.

Research

We produced PowerHouse, a home energy simulator that provides state specific data that allows us to tell the emissions and costs of energy in single and small multifamily housing. With this information, we are able to show the environmental, health, and cost impacts that come from electrification or continued use of fossil fuels, as well as weatherization for our buildings. This allows us to persuasively advocate for better building regulations, electrification, and health standards for consumers, and works to counter the information that fossil fuel companies rely on to assert that electrification is too expensive.

We also published “The Future Is Electric” in February of 2022, which showed that electrification and weatherization would reduce operating costs of New Jersey homes and emissions substantially in the state. We were able to advocate for better incentive programs to make electrification and weatherization more accessible for consumers.

Advocate

We were able to support and pass major bills in Rhode Island that will deliver 100% clean energy in the state by 2033, the earliest target in the nation. Half of RI’s load will be met through procurements for offshore wind and other clean energy can come through partnership with other states to build more clean energy transmission. Acadia Center was able to deliver on our advocacy here by calling attention to the urgency of the climate crisis with our partners and backing up our proposals with data and analytics.

Implement

We  created the Beyond Gas Coalition, which brings together advocates to combine powers and bring forth comments that push for the phasing out of fossil fuels in electrifiable sectors.

Reforming Energy System Planning for Equity and Climate Transformation (RESPECT) highlights significant barriers the utility business model creates for driving change at the speed of the climate crisis. It proposes two key reforms: creating a statewide entity charged with implementing a state’s climate and equity goals, and integrated planning across fuels, utility territories, and other unnecessary silos.

Amy spoke at the Restructuring Roundtable and New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners about the issues raised by RESPECT and are continuing to push for changes to the utilities business model.

Acadia Center used its expertise on renewable natural gas and alternative fuels to fight back against gas companies’ attempts to justify expansion on the Liberty RNG docket and Rhode Island Energy Facility Siting Board.

Part of RESPECT was passed in Maine through LD1959, and we are introducing legislation to introduce RESPECT reforms in Massachusetts in 2023.

Additional 2022 highlights include:

• Being quoted in over 90 articles
• Made 10 podcast appearances
• Featured in 4 TV news segments
• Received 15,610 visitors on Twitter
• Got 355 mentions on Twitter
• Gained 200 followers on Twitter

Oliver Tully, Director of Utility Innovation and Reform was next to present on “Changing How Government & Utilities Work.” Our Utility Innovation initiative is focused on aligning utilities and energy policy with climate, consumer, and equity problems. We do so through 5 key strategies:

1. Reforming Energy System Planning for Equity and Climate Transformation (RESPECT)
2. Holding Public Utility Commissions (PUC) and state agencies accountable for advancing climate and environmental justice goals
3. Reforming utility business models and incentives so they benefit the public
4. Advancing grid modernization to enable a flexible and consumer-friendly energy system
5. Advancing gas utility reform to phase-out fossil gas

Our primary goals of RESPECT specifically are:

• Align utility planning with climate, equity, environmental justice, and clean energy requirements
• Clarify the role of utilities and reduce risk for investments
• Maximize benefits to consumers and the grid by enabling non-biased planning

The utility regulatory system gives utilities far too much power, including planning the future of the grid, owning the infrastructure that gets built, and serving customers. By having a financial stake, utilities have a conflict of interest that increases costs for consumers. The planning today is often siloed and falls short of equity and environmental justice goals.

The RESPECT proposal breaks down siloes and fully incorporates climate and environmental justice impacts through comprehensive energy system planning, as well as creating independent statewide planning entities to enforce transparency and reducing conflicts of interest.

We are currently working on Maine’s PUC’s Integrated Grid Planning proceeding, which builds on “An Act Regarding Utility Accountability and Grid Planning for Maine’s Clean Energy Future” which passed in 2022. We are also building support for bills that would implement RESPECT reforms in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Lastly, we are anticipating an Integrated Distribution System Planning proceeding sometime this year in Connecticut and will be involved in ensuring effective change.

Next to speak was Paola Moncada Tamayo, Policy Analyst for Acadia Center. She discussed Multistate Cooperation and its ability to maximize impacts, reduce costs, and expand reach. Through a multistate cap-and-trade program called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI, 11 states are able to cap greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. RGGI states have seen a reduction of 64 million tons of carbon emissions since the program began. The proceeds from the quarterly auctions so far have generated $1.19 billion dollars, which go towards clean energy programs. So far, RGGI has produced $1.2 billion in energy bill savings, 31.4 million MMBtu of thermal energy saved, 1,400-1,500 new jobs created, and saved 3.4 million MWh of energy.

Acadia Center has been deeply engaged in RGGI’s development over the past 15 years. We are currently updating our RGGI 10 Year Program Review, which will analyze the effectiveness of the program, as well as its impact on environmental justice communities.

Last to present was Ben Butterworth, Director of Climate, Energy, and Equity Analysis. He discussed the future of the gas distribution system. Right now, the gas distribution system delivers gas to 41% of the homes in New England. This gas is used for space heating, water heating, cooking, and drying clothes. The big question Acadia Center is asking is whether the continued existence of the gas distribution system is compatible with achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The lowest cost path to net zero emissions is to electrify almost everything. This means building space heating, water heating, cooking, cars, and smaller trucks should all be pushed toward electrification, not natural gas. However, this presents a direct threat to the continued existence of the natural gas utilities. Gas utilities have been promoting the idea of replacing natural gas with “green hydrogen” and “renewable natural gas,” allowing their continued existence while still hitting climate targets. However, these “alternative fuels” are still expensive, limited in supply, prone to leaking, not carbon neutral, incompatible with current infrastructure, present safety issues, and are inefficient. These “alternative fuels” should be reserved for hard-to-electrify sectors like aviation and chemical production.

Acadia Center has been active in this current debate. In Massachusetts we participated in the DPU 20-80 Investigation Assessing the Future of Natural Gas. In Rhode Island, we are involved in the PUC 22-01-NG Investigation into the Future of Gas, which is similar to the work happening in Massachusetts. And lastly, in Connecticut, where we are part of the Comprehensive Energy Strategy and Hydrogen Task Force. Acadia Center brings to the table our excellent analysis and data, modeling, questioning of assumptions, and we aim to highlight how those problematic assumptions impact policy recommendations. We did so in Massachusetts Future of Gas Study, which we demonstrated was flawed due to its ignoring of lifecycle emissions, underestimation of methane leaks, usage of outdated science, and underestimation of future costs of alternative fuels. For 2023, our goal is to leverage data and analysis to ensure that state-level policies utilize the best available data and science to treat RNG and hydrogen in a fair and balanced manner.

Acadia Center’s 2023 Summer Internship and Fellowship Opportunities

Acadia Center is thrilled to announce our newest openings for internships and fellowships in Summer of 2023. These internships and fellowships will run for 8-10 weeks from June to August and are open for applications now.

Howard Gray, Jr. Climate, Equity and Justice Internship

Acadia Center is seeking motivated undergraduate and graduate students to apply for its 2023 Howard Gray, Jr. Climate, Equity and Justice Internship. The Intern will work with Acadia Center staff – policy experts, researchers, attorneys, and communications professionals– on projects that directly impact the work of the organization. Interns may have the opportunity to meet with policymakers, attend state hearings and meetings, and work in coalition with other advocates. To learn more, follow the link below.

Howard Gray, Jr Climate, Equity, and Justice Intern 2023

Energy and Climate Data Analysis Internship

Acadia Center is seeking motivated undergraduate and graduate students for a summer internship program. The Energy and Climate Data Analysis Intern will conduct data research and analysis projects under supervision of our CLEAN-E team on issues around climate, clean energy, and energy justice challenges. Candidates should be excited by opportunities to use data to inform public policy and enjoy exploring creative ways to communicate their findings to broad audiences. Depending on the projects, the Interns may have the opportunity to meet with policymakers, attend state hearings and meetings, and work in coalition. To learn more, follow the link below.

Acadia Center Data Analysis Internship 2023

Roger E. Koontz Fellowship in Law and Climate Policy

Acadia Center is seeking motivated law students to apply for its Roger E. Koontz Fellowship in Law and Climate Policy. The Koontz Fellow will work with Acadia Center staff – policy experts, researchers, attorneys, and communications professionals– on projects that directly impact the work of the organization. Depending on the work, the Fellow may have the opportunity to meet with policymakers, attend public meetings and engage in coalition interactions. To learn more, follow the link below.

Roger E. Koontz Legal Fellow Summer 2023

Connecticut Releases Hydrogen Task Force Study: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Background & Context

In January, the Connecticut Hydrogen Task Force released its report with recommendations on hydrogen-fueled energy in the state. The Task Force was established by Special Act 22-8 with an assignment to examine the sources of potential clean hydrogen and recommendations for potential end uses of hydrogen-fueled energy. It’s important to note that the legislation did not specifically ask the Task Force to study the most reasonable and cost-effective use of hydrogen to help the state reach its overarching GHG reduction goal of 80% below 2001 levels by 2050 – a critical shortcoming in Acadia Center’s view. Acadia Center has been heavily involved in the stakeholder process informing the development of the Report, including sitting on the End Uses Working Group.

The Task Force’s report comes at a time when hydrogen is a hot topic in the state and region. In 2022, Connecticut joined six other northeastern states to develop a proposal to become one of at least four regional clean hydrogen hubs designated through the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs Program. If selected, the states could receive anywhere from $400 million to $1.25 billion to develop and deploy a hydrogen hub in the region. Simultaneously, DEEP is currently in the process of developing an update to the state’s Comprehensive Energy Strategy, the overarching document that covers a broad set of energy policy recommendations for the state. The role of hydrogen will be a key area of focus in the CES, but it remains to be seen how much the Task Force Study will influence the direction of the CES.

Largely Keeps the Focus on Hard-to-Decarbonize Sectors

As Acadia Center has previously explained in greater detail here, clean hydrogen is and will continue to be a limited resource that should be strategically used in the sectors of the economy that are hardest to electrify, not building heating and passenger vehicles. Fortunately, the Report largely echoes Acadia Center’s stance on this issue, concluding that heat electrification will ultimately be the most cost-effective option for reducing carbon emissions for residential and commercial customers, and that hydrogen fuel cell passenger cars will likely be more expensive in terms of both upfront purchase and fueling costs, and need for a whole new set of fueling infrastructure.

A Few Problematic Recommendations

However, Acadia Center does have some concerns with a few key recommendations stemming from the report.

• Hydrogen Vehicle Tax Exemptions: The Report recommends that “The Legislature should consider tax exemptions for hydrogen vehicles and critical facilities that produce or use clean hydrogen.” While it potentially makes sense to incentivize hydrogen vehicles in portions of the transportation sector that are challenging to electrify (e.g., shipping, long-haul trucking) it makes zero sense to incentivize hydrogen fuel cell passenger vehicles, which are inferior to battery electric vehicles by basically every measure (as the Repot itself acknowledges).
• Hydrogen Blending for Power Plants and Industrial Facilities: A second concern is that the Report categorizes hydrogen blending for “non-core gas customers” (i.e., power generation and industrial heat) as a “high priority hydrogen end use” that should be further investigated by DEEP. However, the report fails to specify that such blending should be done only at the facility level, and not into the gas distribution system that serves all customers.
• Encouraging Hydrogen Producers to Report Fuel Carbon Intensity: Finally, the Report recommends that DEEP “Develop accounting mechanisms that encourage hydrogen producers to certify carbon intensity of produced hydrogen.” This shouldn’t be a voluntary program – DEEP should require that hydrogen producers certify the carbon intensity of the fuel they produce. Only then can we be sure that clean hydrogen really is clean.

Much Work Still to Be Done to Define a Reasonable Role of Hydrogen in Connecticut

Ultimately, before DEEP can determine the most reasonable, cost-effective role for hydrogen to play in helping Connecticut reach its long-term GHG emissions reduction goals, it’s necessary to evaluate the tradeoffs between different future “pathways” through an economy-wide modeling analysis, similar to what Massachusetts did in the 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap. This type of analysis would help the state to clearly understand how hydrogen fits into the overall, long-term decarbonization puzzle in the state. Connecticut still hasn’t undertaken that type of comprehensive analysis and this Report does not (and doesn’t pretend to) fill that void. As a result, the recommendations from the Report are of limited value and really serve as only the first step in understanding the appropriate role for hydrogen in Connecticut.

The Report highlights next steps for DEEP which Acadia Center is on board with, including advising DEEP to:

• Develop a definition of clean hydrogen appropriate for Connecticut.
• Evaluate the sufficiency of zero-emission electricity sources to meet both electric sector decarbonization goals and hydrogen production targets.
• Lead interstate and interagency coordination to develop a hydrogen roadmap and strategy that, among other things, examines the cost and availability of zero-carbon renewable energy resources to produce clean hydrogen and examines overall alignment with state policies and goals, including GHG reduction goals.

It’s critical for DEEP to follow through on these recommendations and economy-wide pathways modeling will be essential in supporting them in this task.

For more information:

Ben Butterworth, Director of Climate, Energy, and Equity Analysis, bbutterworth@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054  ext. 111

Hot Topic: Dispelling the Myths about Induction Stoves

Induction stoves have become a hot topic as of late. With the push for the transition to renewables getting stronger than ever, so does the push from fossil gas advocates. Their newest target is induction stovetops, and creating fear around the move away from gas stoves. We’re here to dispel some of the myths and misinformation around induction cooktops.

Myth: Induction is not as powerful as gas and doesn’t get as hot

Fact: Induction is actually far more powerful than gas, given how efficient they are at dispersing heat across the surface of the cookware. While open flames wrap around a pot or pan, losing temperature and equal heating, induction is able to cook more precisely.

Myth: You’ll have to replace all of your cookware, costing you hundreds more

Fact: Induction cooktops do require cookware made of magnetic materials, meaning copper and aluminum pans are unable to work. However, most good quality alloy, cast iron, and other ferromagnetic material pots and pans will work well on induction cooktops. You likely already have all of the cookware you would need for an induction system.

Myth: Glass cooktops aren’t strong and will break much easier

Fact: Induction cooktops are incredibly strong and are all safety tested to withstand significant weight and pressure. When shopping, look for ceramic glass top induction stoves for the safest and strongest option.

Myth: Induction stoves are more expensive than gas

Fact: While induction cooktops can be expensive, the Inflation Reduction Act has made it more affordable than ever. Even if installing a full induction stovetop is outside of your budget, there are single burner induction cooktops available for as little as $50. Once you have your induction cooktop, the actual cost of operating it is significantly less than a gas range or an electric range. Because induction stoves are incredibly efficient, they utilize 85-90% of the energy they generate, making them the most energy efficient cooktop option.

Myth: Induction stoves can interfere with medical devices like pacemakers

Fact: There has never been a recorded instance of pacemaker interference with induction cooktops. The American Medical Association has never listed induction cooktops as a risk to those with pacemakers, despite listing many other everyday devices that can interfere. The magnetic wave of an induction stove only extends about an inch off the surface when not covered in a pot or pan.

Additional benefits to switching to induction:

IRA rebates make it more affordable, with rental households and households earning less than $210k getting rebates of up to $840 to switch to induction from gas. Many state energy efficiency programs also offer incentives – for instance MassSave offers a $500 rebate. 

Switching to induction means fewer preventable illnesses and diseases in your household. In the last few years, studies have shown that natural gas infrastructure leaks more often than previously thought – making the greenhouse gas impact higher than coal in some cases. In addition, the gas mixture contains many toxic chemicals and stoves in the Boston area were found to leak even when not in use. Finally, gas in the household has proven to increase respiratory illnesses like asthma by as much as 12.7% for children.  

Acadia Center staff look ahead to 5 key areas of focus in 2023.

Potential Impacts of Grid Modernization Advisory Council in Massachusetts Already Taking Shape

Creation of the Council

On August 11, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed comprehensive climate legislation that will help boost offshore wind, adoption of electric vehicles, and building decarbonization. Among the many pieces of this extensive legislation was a requirement to develop of a Grid Modernization Advisory Council (Council). As part of this provision, electric distribution companies would be required to develop grid modernization plans and submit them to the Council. Acadia Center is hopeful that this Council will ensure that utility grid modernization plans are regularly updated, maximize benefits delivered to ratepayers, and provide for greater stakeholder input and public participation. Even before its members have been appointed, we are already seeing the impact of this new entity.

Grid Modernization Dockets, DPU 21-80 through 21-82

On Wednesday, December 2, the Department of Public Utilities (Department) issued a ruling in DPU Dockets 21-80 through 21-82, grid modernization proceedings for Eversource, National Grid, and Unitil. These proceedings required the companies to submit updated grid modernization plans, as well as plans to achieve full-scale deployment of advanced metering infrastructure. The companies submitted separate plans that included a ten-year grid modernization vision, a five-year strategic plan, and a four-year investment plan covering 2022-2025.

Acadia Center generally supported the implementation of these plans, but argued for some changes. We were concerned that 1) the proposed timelines for implementing time-varying rates (TVR) were far too slow; 2) by using an opt-in approach to TVR, the companies’ assumed customer participation rates were significantly lower than would be optimal to deliver the maximum possible benefits to customers; 3) the AMI plans did not propose specific AMI deployment performance metrics; 4) the plans either made passing mention or no mention of equity or environmental justice; and 5) the companies did not prioritize data access for customers and third-party vendors.

Acadia Center had some success in the proceeding, achieving some direct wins, such as the Department asking the companies to include a uniform statewide approach to evaluating equity of preauthorized grid modernization investments. However, a number of requests were left up in the air, thanks to the development of the new Grid Modernization Advisory Council.

The Department evaluated grid modernization performance metrics proposed by the companies and found some of them wanting, specifically the grid-facing and AMI performance metrics. They found that “additional work [was] needed in collaboration with the parties to develop performance metrics that appropriately track the quantitative benefits associated with grid-facing and customer-facing investments, and progress toward grid modernization objectives.” The Department also acknowledged several stakeholders’ arguments about the timeline for TVR and directed the companies to work with stakeholders “to identify AMI meter deployment strategies that may expedite and maximize the availability of TVR products to customers during the AMI deployment period.” The companies must now convene a stakeholder process to settle a number of outstanding issues, including the two above. This stakeholder process will convene at the soon-to-be-created Grid Modernization Advisory Council, where there will now be significantly increased transparency, deliberation, and stakeholder participation and input.

Grid Modernization Advisory Council Impacts in Other Dockets

We have also seen the impact of the coming Grid Modernization Advisory Council in other dockets. DPU 20-75-C was a long-winding docket assessing electric distribution companies’ optimal solutions for long-term planning for the interconnection of distributed generation facilities. Unfortunately, despite significant time and work invested by stakeholders and the Department, the Department opted to close its investigation in light of the creation of the new Council. While Acadia Center is concerned by the seemingly wasted time and effort in that docket, the long and overwrought process highlighted the need for reforms that will hopefully be provided by the Council.

Similarly, in DPU 22-22, an Eversource rate docket, the Department declined to move ahead with several pieces, including an electrification framework and revised peak periods, noting that certain factors would have to be settled at the newly created Council.

Acadia Center is hopeful that this coming Council will result in comprehensive and state-of-the-art grid modernization plans and a transparent and open stakeholder process to address these important issues.

For more information:

Kyle Murray, kmurray@acadiacenter.org,  617-742-0054 ext. 106