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.

Massachusetts’ “Green Bank”: What’s it all about?

In Massachusetts, Governor Healey’s administration has announced the creation of the Massachusetts Community Climate Bank. Otherwise known as the Green Bank, it will begin with $50 million in seed funding and will be initially targeted at decarbonizing affordable housing. While other states have established Green Banks, the Massachusetts approach is notable because it will be the first ever in the nation devoted to affordable housing. However, there are plans to expand it eventually. You may have two questions though: 1) what is a Green Bank, and 2) with so many programs already in place for decarbonization, why do we need it?

At the most basic level, Green Banks are “public, quasi-public, or nonprofit financing entities that leverage public and private capital to pursue goals for clean energy projects that reduce emissions.”  They allow clean energy projects which may not be able to meet traditional financing requirements to get the capital necessary to move projects forward. The $50 million initial investment from the Healey Administration will allow it to access some of the $27 billion in funding in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund established by the federal Inflation Reduction Act. Miriam Wasser from Boston radio station WBUR has prepared this explainer about Green Banks operate.

A more interesting question is why Massachusetts needs a Green Bank when the state already has several incentive programs. The answer is straightforward: what is currently available is nowhere near enough to fund our building decarbonization needs. The Commonwealth will need to invest billions to achieve its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction requirements.

In Massachusetts, over 65% of the energy used by buildings comes from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, roughly 85% of the residential buildings expected to exist in 2050 have already been built. This housing stock is also older, as with much of New England and the Northeast. Older homes are significantly more difficult and expensive to retrofit. These aspects of the building stock in Massachusetts signal the need for more large-scale investment in programs to retrofit, weatherize, and replace fossil fuels used in these buildings.

Currently, the vast majority of funding in Massachusetts for weatherization and heat pump installation comes from the utility-administered  Mass Save energy efficiency program. Massachusetts has fielded a top-rated energy efficiency program for over a decade that provides billions of dollars in investment toward energy efficiency, weatherization, and heat pumps. However, the program is primarily funded through ratepayer dollars. As the need to invest in housing stock improvements, additional funds are needed to avoid placing the decarbonization burden on utility ratepayers. Therefore, the need to find alternative funding mechanisms for decarbonization is clearly critical.

A Green Bank alone will not entirely solve our decarbonization financing needs for the Commonwealth. However, it remains a critical piece in the decarbonization jigsaw puzzle and signals that the Healey Administration understands the need to diversify the funding sources to meet the building decarbonization challenge.

Community Engagement Towards a Clean Power Grid: How Cities and Towns Can Advance the Fight for Transmission and Grid Reform

The electric power grid is an essential part of our energy system. While we can see the transmission lines and supporting infrastructure that crisscross the landscape, what is hidden from view are the billions of dollars consumers pay to support the power grid. 

Historically, the power grid has established planning and tariff policies that have favored fossil gas generation in the name of reliability and has failed to embrace the full potential for clean energy. The result is that over 50% of electricity is generated by fossil gas plants. This exposes consumers to volatile pricing in fossil fuel markets and imposes economic burdens by limiting clean energy options that offer clean, cost-effective technologies. By sustaining fossil infrastructure, public health is damaged, most often in communities that suffer from disproportionate impacts of pollution. Acadia Center’s recent RGGI Report shows the stark legacy of siting fossil fuel infrastructure near low-income communities. 

Local communities are key stakeholders in how the regional grid is operated. Many cities and towns have adopted clean energy and climate goals that can only be achieved with the regional grid acting in alignment to embrace clean energy. Hospitals, agencies, and social services – are impacted by energy costs, volatility, and the myriad ways harmful air pollution affects residents. 

For these reasons, with the generous support of the Barr Foundation, Acadia Center is starting a new program to conduct outreach on power grid issues to communities. Our Communities and Clean Grid Engagement Project will explore the interest of local communities in adding their voices to the critical issues addressed at the regional grid level. 

Cities and towns play a unique role because they are large energy consumers themselves and they represent their residents’ interests in having access to reliable, affordable, and sustainable electricity. Across the United States, cities and towns are emerging as clean energy leaders and have procured over eight gigawatts of renewable energy over the last five years. This city leadership is catalyzing action across smaller communities and other public institutions. 

Acadia Center has been engaged since 2006 in the role of the grid in addressing and intruding on climate, clean energy, and consumer goals. We have raised issues around barriers created by project funding and tariff formulas, governance, and failures in long-term planning. We are working with other organizations and coalitions growing in their focus and outreach. 

We look forward to engaging with public officials, community leaders, and other stakeholders around the region and strengthening the movement for building a clean grid that benefits all residents. 

Climate Change Solutions with Bill McKibben

Most understand the climate is changing before our eyes. Implementing solutions has been slowly occurring, but much more needs to be accomplished. Join Bill McKibben for an in-depth discussion on the opportunities, priorities, and diverse solutions to address the challenges of carbon emission and climate change. Find out what each of us can do to make a difference.

Recording of the Webinar available here: https://www.nfrpp.org/2023/07/13/climate-change-solutions-with-bill-mckibben/

Join us July 11 @ 7:30 pm – 8:30 pm

To RSVP for the Zoom Webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_KhSMFuBjRCuTyV4aox1vuA

To watch the event on Facebook Live: https://www.facebook.com/NFRPP/live_videos/

Speakers:

Bill McKibben is a contributing writer to The New Yorker, and a founder of Third Act, which organizes people over the age of 60 to work on climate and racial justice. He founded the first global grassroots climate campaign, 350.org, and serves as the Schumann Distinguished Professor in Residence at Middlebury College in Vermont. In 2014 he was awarded the Right Livelihood Prize, sometimes called the ‘alternative Nobel,’ in the Swedish Parliament. He’s also won the Gandhi Peace Award, and honorary degrees from 19 colleges and universities. He has written over a dozen books about the environment, including his first, The End of Nature, published in 1989, and his latest book is The Flag, the Cross, and the Station Wagon: A Graying American Looks Back at his Suburban Boyhood and Wonders What the Hell Happened.

Daniel L. Sosland, the moderator, is the President of Acadia Center. For over 25 years, Dan has been working in the field of climate and clean energy solutions. His major focus has been as president and co-founder of Acadia Center, a non-profit research and advocacy organization acting at the state, regional, and community levels to advance climate and clean energy solutions in the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada. One of the first such organizations created in the U.S. to address climate solutions, Acadia Center, has won awards from U.S. EPA, the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy and others for its groundbreaking work on climate pathways, energy efficiency and transforming government to be responsive to climate and equity and is ranked in the top 1% of non-profits evaluated by Charity Navigator. Prior to Acadia Center, Dan’s work focused on energy efficiency and forest and watershed protection. Dan was given the Maine Forever Award by Gov. Angus King and the Exemplary Public Service Award from Cornell Law School.  He began his career at a major law firm in New York City and holds a JD with honors from Cornell Law School and a BA from Brown University.  He is a member of the board of directors of the U.S. Climate Action Network.

PURA Advancing a Framework for Performance-Based Utility Regulation

Utilities recover the costs of the investments that are needed to provide customers with energy through the bills that customers pay each month. This “cost-of-service” framework is the foundation of traditional utility regulation. In contrast, Performance-Based Regulation (PBR) is an alternative method for regulating utilities that ties utility revenues more directly to their performance, such as efforts to reduce emissions or to support the deployment of distributed energy resources, rather than tying earnings primarily to the costs required to provide service.  

By allowing regulators to better align utility revenues with improved performance, PBR— which includes a broad set of regulatory tools, such as performance metrics and financial penalties or rewards—can help overcome outdated incentives under traditional utility regulation. High allowed returns create incentives for utilities to build expensive infrastructure projects, but PBR can help reorient utilities towards more cost-effective solutions that can save customers money and deliver additional benefits, such as reducing emissions and improving environmental justice outcomes.   

States across the US have experimented with PBR to varying degrees and with varying degrees of success. Recently, Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) announced a decision that formally adopts regulatory goals and outcomes for PBR in the state. Over the past year, Acadia Center worked with a range of stakeholders to help develop PBR goals and assess how well existing utility regulatory policies do or do not align with those goals. (Some of Acadia Center’s filings in support of PBR in Connecticut can be found here and here.) 

PURA’s decision formally adopts four overarching goals for PBR in Connecticut and nine priority outcomes within those goals, including greenhouse gas emission reductions, advancing social equity, ensuring affordable service, and advancing reliability and resiliency. PURA’s decision sets the stage for the next phase of the PBR proceeding, which is expected to last through 2024. Phase 2 will consist of three “reopener” proceedings, each covering a specific set of issues in more detail, including the rules that govern how utilities recover their costs; performance metrics and incentives; and a process to develop an Integrated Distribution System Planning proceeding. 

Acadia Center commends PURA for taking this important step. However, although Phase 1 of Connecticut’s PBR proceeding has clarified the goals and outcomes that will inform future analyses and proposals, stakeholders will only know the real outcome of this decision in the spring and fall of 2024, when the three reopener proceedings end—and after PURA decides to what extent policy reforms will be implemented. PURA’s recent decision is a commitment to consider potential changes to many types of regulatory tools, which itself is a major step forward, and Acadia Center looks forward to exploring in more detail how utility regulatory tools should change.  

PURA’s leadership in moving this proceeding forward is noteworthy, and Acadia Center is hopeful that the PBR proceeding results in a robust framework that accelerates the achievement of Connecticut’s climate and clean energy goals and helps to deliver a clean and affordable energy system for all ratepayers.  

Daniel L. Sosland: Arctic Refuge affects people in Connecticut

Acadia Center recently joined more than 240 other organizations in requesting that major insurance companies, including The Hartford and Travelers here in Connecticut, show their solidarity with the Gwich’in Nation, who speak with one voice from Canada to Alaska against oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Alaska. The coastal plain of the refuge is the birthing and nursing grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd and known to the Gwich’in people as Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit — the Sacred Place Where Life Begins.

The letter asks 10 of the largest insurance companies to commit to the protection of the Arctic Refuge from the harms of fossil fuel development by announcing policies against insuring drilling projects there.

As a Northeast-based organization with deep Connecticut roots, this may seem like a far step from local concerns, but the issues arising around the protection and sanctity of the Arctic Refuge are ones that should register here. Acadia Center works to advance bold, effective, and equitable clean energy solutions for a livable climate and a stronger, more equitable economy in Connecticut and around the region. Connecticut, often a clean energy leader in the region, is working to build a clean energy system that puts people front and center, shifting conversations to promote equitable and economically beneficial solutions.

What happens in the Arctic impacts us all — even in the Northeast. The Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. If we allow drilling to happen in the refuge, entire coastal villages will continue to erode into the sea, the melting of permafrost will increasingly make infrastructure insecure or impossible, and food sources will disappear. Already, federal dollars are being spent to relocate villages sliding into the sea.

The sea around our coastline is also rising faster than the global average. Hurricanes are increasing in number and intensity – 2020 saw 30 tropical storms, forcing forecasters to dig deep into the Greek alphabet for names, and we are experiencing more heatwaves. With each passing year, the urgency grows to accelerate progress toward clean energy for people across the Northeast. Yet there is hope and progress. Connecticut is joined by most states in the region with aggressive plans to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. Jobs in renewable energy industries such as wind and solar now outnumber jobs in the fossil fuel industry. This is our economic and environmental future. Producing and burning oil from the Arctic Refuge would accelerate climate change not just for Arctic communities, but for the world. And have little to no impact on energy prices.

Recently, Chubb became the first American insurance company to issue a policy stating that they will not underwrite oil and gas projects in the Arctic Refuge. They join 17 insurers and 29 major financial institutions that have restricted support for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Refuge. This list includes five of Canada’s largest banks along with America’s six largest: Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. These financial institutions recognize the risks and the reputational consequences they would face should they support the violation of Indigenous Peoples’ human rights and such an important ecosystem.

Acadia Center is proud to have a presence in Connecticut’s vibrant community, and we all want to be proud of our large companies and employers. In solidarity with the Gwich’in Nation, we respectfully urge two of the most important businesses in the state, The Hartford and Travelers, to join colleagues and competitors, and other financial institutions that have taken a stand against financing or insuring oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The human rights of Alaska Indigenous communities, the ecological value of the refuge, and the need to do all we can to avoid the devastating climate impacts are compelling reasons to phase out our addiction to oil and gas. Current and future generations depend on all of us making forward-thinking commitments to human rights and the health of our planet.

Op-ed originally featured in the Hartford Courant. Click here to read it there.

Jumpstarting the Clean Heat Standard Process

Clean Heat Standard Momentum 

In the past few years, discussion about implementing a Clean Heat Standard (CHS) has quickly gained steam around the country. In 2021 Colorado passed legislation requiring the development of Clean Heat Plans. Just this week, the Vermont Senate overrode Governor Phil Scott’s veto of a CHS bill, and the House appears to be poised to do the same. In Massachusetts, a CHS was first seriously considered several years ago as the state developed its clean energy and climate plans for 2025 and 2030. Later, as part of its Final Report, the Massachusetts Commission on Clean Heat endorsed developing a CHS. The Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2050 later adopted the CHS framework outlined in the Clean Heat Commission’s report. With all this momentum in place, you may be left with one question: what exactly is a Clean Heat Standard? 

What is a Clean Heat Standard? 

As identified by the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP) in a paper prepared for the Massachusetts CECP, a CHS is a “credit-based performance standard that would be applied to suppliers of heating energy in Massachusetts, notably gas utilities and providers of heating oil and propane, and possibly electricity suppliers.” These parties would then be obligated to provide gradually increasing amounts of low- or zero-emissions fuel to consumers. The concept is similar to a Renewable Portfolio Standard. In Massachusetts, the goal would be to decarbonize the building sector at the speed and scale necessary to support the state in achieving its building sector emissions reduction target of 47% below 1990 emission levels by 2030 and 93% by 2050. 

However, while the basic concepts are simple enough, the actual details of such a program and its implementation are a bit trickier. If properly designed, a CHS could serve as another valuable decarbonization policy tool for cost-effectively electrifying and improving the efficiency of buildings in a state without driving up costs to electric ratepayers. However, if poorly implemented, a CHS could serve to potentially undermine decarbonization goals. One critical area to get right is understanding the actual lifecycle emissions of certain alternative heating fuels, such as biofuels. Vermont’s proposed CHS is extremely friendly to biofuels, but biofuels can produce significant emissions. Another key issue surrounds the future of fossil gas as a heating fuel. Neither the RAP report nor the Massachusetts Clean Heat Commission report for example provide detailed recommendations on how the most complicated (and important) elements of a CHS should be designed. For example, what is the long-term vision to phasing out fossil gas for heating and for the future of the natural gas distribution system? How can a CHS be designed to support achieving that vision? Further, if certain biofuels are deemed eligible within the CHS, what specific methodology should the Commonwealth use to accurately account for lifecycle emissions from these fuels? These are the types of make or break decisions that can cause the policy to sink or swim. Therefore, it is absolutely crucial that states looking to adopt a CHS get the details of its proposal correct. 

Acadia Center and Colleague Input 

In Massachusetts, the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEP) initiated a stakeholder process in April 2023 regarding the development of a CHS for Massachusetts, to little fanfare or attention. This process included a stakeholder discussion document in which DEP requested information on program design input, recommendations for further input, and suggested topics, locations, and formats for stakeholder meetings and hearings. In response, Acadia Center worked with a number of stakeholders, including Conservation Law Foundation, Green Energy Consumers Alliance, Home Energy Efficiency Team, and Pipe Line Awareness for the Northeast to develop a response document on to which over 35 organizations signed. Acadia Center with our colleagues produced a comprehensive 22-page document responding to the DEP’s questions and outlined our vision for a successful CHS for Massachusetts. These top priorities include a CHS that ensures adequate equity protections and an electrification-only compliance program, particularly for gas utilities.  

On equity and energy justice, the document asks DEP to design the program to focus direct and indirect benefits on customers with the highest energy burdens. We also ask DEP to coordinate closely with the Department of Energy Resources and the Department of Public Utilities on complimentary strategies, including rate design, the Alternative Portfolio Standard, and a managed transition off gas. 

Acadia Center and its colleagues further ask DEP to design the CHS in a manner that best supports the most cost-effective long-term emissions reduction pathway. This concept centers around focusing compliance pathways on non-combustion technologies rather than biofuels or hydrogen blending, particularly for gas. The document asks DEP to utilize the 2025/2030 CECP’s High Electrification Scenario as opposed to the Phased Scenario, as the High Electrification Scenario emphasizes higher levels of near-term full-building electrification and a more rapid phase down of gas heating systems, better positioning the state to achieve 2050 climate goals at similar costs.  

On stakeholder input, we urge DEP to balance different tracks of stakeholder processes for different types of stakeholders. We also urge the development of technical sessions on key design topics, such as coordination with the Mass Save energy efficiency programs, hybrid heating system credits, and calculation of credits by technology. 

While many details remain to be worked out, Acadia Center is encouraged by the positive first steps taken by the Commonwealth. We look forward to working with the Administration as these proposals move forward. 

For more information: 

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

The Race for a Renewable Future: How the EU and US Are Tackling Clean Energy

States have long filled a climate gap in the United States and served as leaders in establishing clean energy and emissions goals. Over 30 states and the District of Columbia have clean energy standards in place. Clean energy goals set mandates for clean energy, usually called Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) or Clean Energy Targets, typically imposed on electricity providers. States differ in what clean energy technologies qualify under their laws. Climate goals, or Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets, set goals for the overall emissions in a state – including energy, transportation, and other sectors.  

Northeast states were early leaders in this trend. Connecticut, for example, was one of the first states in the country to set a goal of 80% emissions reductions by 2050 in legislation. Acadia Center monitors the northeast and mid-Atlantic region and has found the following:  

By the end of 2020, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports that 67% of electricity retail sales in the U.S. States fall under legally binding RPSs. 

At the federal level, there is no specific statute setting a national U.S. clean energy standard or climate goal, although legislation passed last year – the Inflation Reduction Act – and nonbinding national targets are designed to produce emission reductions 40-50% below 2005 levels by 2030, in line with aggressive state climate goals. Federal policy is intended to reach commitments in the Paris Climate Accords. 

How do these efforts at the state and federal levels compare to other countries?  

The European Union (EU) and the United States are both taking steps to transition towards cleaner energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. However, there are some notable differences in their approaches. 

The goal set by the EU would reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. To achieve this, the EU has implemented a variety of policies and initiatives to support renewable energy, such as the Renewable Energy Directive, which sets binding targets for renewable energy use, and the European Green Deal, which aims to make the EU’s economy sustainable. The EU also has a carbon pricing system in place, the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which covers energy and industrial sectors and provides a financial incentive for companies to reduce their emissions. 

In March 2023, the European Union agreed to double its renewable energy targets by 2030, a significant increase from its previous target of 32%. The new goal is for 65% of the EU’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030, with further targets for energy efficiency and electrification of transport. 

The US federal government has also recently made progress on climate policy. President Biden’s American Jobs Plan includes significant funding for clean energy and infrastructure, and he has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, similar to the EU 2030 goal. The Biden administration has also rejoined the Paris Agreement and has set emissions reduction targets for the US. 

However, there are still significant challenges facing both the EU and the US in their clean energy transitions. In the EU, some member states remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels, and there is resistance to phasing out these industries. In the US, there is political polarization on climate policy, with some states and industries opposing regulations and incentives for clean energy. 

Overall, while there are differences in the approaches taken by the EU and the US, both are making progress in transitioning to cleaner energy sources. The EU’s ambitious targets and policy framework provide a solid foundation for its efforts, while the US has made considerable progress at the state level and is now beginning to pursue more ambitious national policies. By continuing to work towards their goals, both the EU and the US can make significant contributions to global efforts to combat climate change.