Advancing DEIJ through Partnerships

Acadia Center recently became a founding member of Browning the Green Space (BGS), a membership-based non-profit organization seeking to advance diversity and inclusion in the clean energy industry. BGS, founded by Kerry Bowie who currently serves as the Executive Director of the organization, was borne out of the overwhelming need to diversify the climate and clean energy workforce with voices that are often excluded in climate solutions while making efforts to promote the inclusion of communities that suffer the impact of climate change.  

Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) are underrepresented in the clean energy sector and in the decision-making process for climate solutions. Communities of color and low-income communities have continually shouldered unequal environmental pollution and harm and, as climate change impact intensifies, these communities in addition to other frontline communities will suffer extreme climate-related events associated with climate change. BGS understands the implications of the climate impacts on frontline communities and the need to ensure that their lived experiences not only form solutions for the future but that they are also included in the workforce and rewarded for their contributions.  

Acadia Center supports the mission and vision of Browning the Green Space. Across our initiatives and programs, we consistently observe that increased participation of minority voices can produce better outcomes for people and communities. While working to ensure our commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice values are prioritized, we hope that through BGS and other coalition opportunities, we can collaborate on best practices and resources that push the vision of an equitable, climate-safe future for all communities.    

  

Acadia Center Summer Internships

Acadia Center is pleased to have provided three internship opportunities this summer.  The work of these exceptional students has proven beneficial to their learning and to our organization as a whole. We are grateful for their time and talent.

Sarah Smith is a rising junior at Brown University studying political science. She is from Yarmouth, Maine and, as a Mainer, has a deep personal connection to and investment in the New England environment. Sarah has been researching the potential of mass timber as a substitute for concrete and steel in construction, and the subsequent environmental benefits. Using engineered wood in place of conventional construction materials can decrease the embodied carbon of the building as well as sequester carbon from the harvested trees. There are several high-rise mass timber projects in the works in the United States, and many more globally. Sarah has been distilling existing research and compiling next steps into a memo for the Acadia Center to have as a future resource.

Joseph Wapelhorst is a second-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center, where he is a member of the Journal of Law and Public Policy. As a legal intern at the Acadia Center, he has supported senior regulatory attorneys by conducting research on the Supreme Court’s recent changes to the EPA and federal administrative state’s authority as well as the power of New England states to phase out gas utilities. His work has focused on whether New England states possess the authority to shift away from gas utilities to more renewable energy sources, their obligations to serve their citizens in doing so, and the cost allocation methods that would be used in such efforts.

Meenakshi Jani is a rising senior at Amherst College, where she is majoring in environmental studies and history. At Amherst, she has been involved in organizations such as the Environmental Justice Alliance, where she helped to lead the campaign for divesting the college’s endowment from fossil fuels and the prison-industrial complex. As a DEIJ/legislative intern at Acadia Center, she has been researching transportation advocacy in the region. Specifically, she has been analyzing the story of the Transportation and Climate Initiative and its implications for future clean transportation advocacy in the Northeast. She has also been reading the transportation policy proposals of organizations in and beyond the Northeast, such as in the Midwest, West Coast, Canada, and the EU, to examine how those can be incorporated into Acadia Center’s clean energy advocacy. In addition, she is compiling a database of environmental advocacy organizations in the region.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency

Last week, the Supreme Court decided a case that will have substantial impact on how greenhouse gas emissions and other public safety issues are regulated at the federal level.  The case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, – US –, (2022), struck down a regulation that was never implemented and therefore does not immediately change any current EPA program to regulate climate change. However, the Court’s reliance for the first time on a new doctrine called the Major Questions Doctrine has potential to significantly impact future agency decisions where Congress has not explicitly outlined how to regulate – making it harder for EPA, and all other federal agencies, to advance their missions. In light of this decision, it is even more crucial for states, regions and communities to respond to the climate crisis and work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Striking Down CPP’s Methods

The decision struck down the Clean Power Plan (CPP)’s approach restrict greenhouse gas emissions by incentivizing movement to clean energy but did not strike the goals of the CPP itself. The CPP is a 2015 Obama Administration approach to reduce climate pollution from the nation’s powerplants.  The court ruled that the EPA was not authorized by the Clean Air Act (CAA) to make such a major change to the nationwide grid. To make such a major policy decision, an agency like the EPA would need clear Congressional authorization, which the Court found Congress did not provide.

Historically, the EPA utilized the power given to it by Congress to regulate individual powerplant site emissions through pollution standards set by the agency. The Court found that the CPP was different because it marked a shift from using the EPA’s authority to require individual generators to reduce emissions to a program changing all generators’ methods for producing energy – namely, limiting their use of coal. While the EPA may have been right that climate change required more drastic action than requiring emission efficiency from “dirty” generators, the court found that Congress had not explicitly given the EPA the authority to make that decision.

This does present an obstacle to the goal the CPP was trying to achieve since the EPA now needs further authorization from Congress to take such a broad step. States, however, are not blocked from taking up the torch. Additionally, since the CPP never went into effect, the Biden administration may still craft a plan which takes more aggressive steps to curtail emissions while acting within the traditionally understood authority of the EPA, as defined by the Supreme Court. It would be a delicate balance, but the court’s opinion hints that the answer would lie in traditional regulation of individual sources rather than the restructuring of the national grid’s generators.

Major Questions Doctrine

The Court elevates a relatively new doctrine, previously cited only in one case’s dissent, to form the heart of its decision. See Gundy v. U.S., 139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) (dissent)

This major questions doctrine (MQD) is a new way of approaching the Non-Delegation Doctrine (NDD). NDD is the principle that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to administrative agencies without violating the separation of powers in the Constitution. For almost a century, when Congress delegated its legislative power, it had to provide an “intelligible principle” to guide the agency’s exercise of discretion. See Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), In other words, Congress could only delegate if it made clear “the general policy” and the “boundaries of authority.”

But starting in the late 20th Century, the Court applied a standard that was very deferential to the agencies’ own interpretation of whether Congress supplied the “intelligible principle” required. This is popularly known as Chevron deference, named for the case in which the court first made clear this deferential standard that allowed agencies to interpret statutes they administer. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Since broad delegations were necessary in the complex world of administrative agencies, and the judiciary is ill equipped to draw meaningful lines, the agency’s expertise usually won the day.

The MQD turns Chevron deference on its head. As a matter of interpretation, if Congress gives an agency responsibility or “powers of vast executive and political significance” they must be explicit on intent to delegate that authority and what the delegation entails or else the court will read it as not delegating. In other words, the more politically significant the issue is, the more likely the Court is to require an explicit statement from Congress. The MQD was first discussed in a dissent by Justice Gorsuch (and two others) in 2019 as a way to more strictly restrain the administrative agencies. It now has been adopted by the majority for the first time in West Virginia v. EPA.

A shift to the MQD to resolve cases involving agency regulation would bind agencies’ hands and require explicit Congressional approval for them to act. This would slow down the agency’s work and make the executive agencies more dependent on the legislative majority rather than the White House. This is especially troublesome for an EPA looking to take big steps to combat climate change since they would need more explicit authority to take measures that are not outlined in the statutes that give the EPA its power. It is not impossible to pursue progressive policies, but it will make the process more difficult.

The Importance of States and Regions

With federal agencies’ powers potentially curtailed, actions at the state and regional level are even more important. Thankfully, organizations like Acadia Center that focus on state, regional and local action are on the job.

One example of a successful regional effort to reduce GHG emissions is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Acadia Center was actively involved in its beginnings back in 2008 and 2009. In 2022, RGGI is predicted to deliver around $1B in allowance revenues for the eleven member states (including all of New England and New York). Because much of this money is invested in clean energy and energy efficiency within the member states, it returns significant economic and environmental benefits and CO2 reductions within the states. RGGI Inc. released a report in May that estimates that the $196M invested in 2020 will return $1.9B in lifetime energy bill savings and 6.6 million short tons of CO2 emissions avoided.

This fall, RGGI is undergoing the Third RGGI Program Review, and Acadia Center is seizing this opportunity to tailor the program to ensure that the priorities called for by environmental justice communities are fully addressed in the next phase of RGGI.  Historically, these communities have faced a disproportionate burden energy system pollution. During the program review, it is essential that each RGGI state critically consider equitable investment in communities that face the worst effects of polluting power plants. This ongoing program review provides a chance for states to consider the recent auctions, history of investments across the states, the need to directly address environmental justice communities, and other mechanisms associated with the cap-and-invest program. Acadia Center remains closely involved in RGGI policy conversations across the RGGI states and will continue to advocate for program reforms that drive equitable investment and climate action.

 

Maine PUC Has the Tools for Real Utility Reform But Needs Time and Will To Use Them!

Few state agencies have more impact on Mainers’ daily lives than the Public Utilities Commission (Commission). The Commission regulates electric, gas, and water utilities’ rates and services and provides oversight to the state’s utility monopolies, Central Maine Power and Versant Power, who collectively serve more than 795,000 electricity customers over 22,000 square miles from Fort Kent to Kittery. For most of its existence, the Commission was charged with keeping rates low, ensuring reliable supply of electricity, and allowing utilities to earn a profit on their businesses. Recent action authorizes Commissioners to do more.

The 130th Maine Legislature, which wrapped up its two-year session in May 2022, enacted reforms that strengthen the Commission’s regulatory hand when it comes to electric utilities. First LD 1682 – An Act To Require Consideration of Climate Impacts by the Public Utilities Commission and To Incorporate Equity Considerations in Decision Making by State Agencies empowers the agency to make decisions that prioritize greenhouse gas emission reductions as part of its primary mission, in addition to affordability, reliability, and utility profit. Second, LD 1959 – An Act Regarding Utility Accountability and Grid Planning for Maine’s Clean Energy Future, strengthens the agency’s ability to hold utilities accountable for their performance and impacts on ratepayers. LD 1959 also requires the Commission to initiate comprehensive, integrated grid planning with robust stakeholder input, review, and transparency. A third law, LD 2018  An Act to Implement Recommendations Regarding the Incorporation of Equity Considerations in Regulatory Decision Making, opens the door for more inclusive and accessible Commission proceedings for environmental justice and frontline communities. These new laws will hopefully lead Maine to a more reliable, clean, and affordable electricity grid that benefits all Mainers.

Regulatory reforms of this magnitude take time; CMP, however, is wasting no time at all. Before the ink was dry on Governor Janet Mills’ signature on LD 1959, Maine’s largest utility-owned investor announced its intent to file a three-year plan that hikes electricity delivery rates before the Commission can flex its new regulatory muscles around utility reliability and affordability performance metrics, grid planning, and climate and equity considerations. The utility also seeks a 10-10.5 percent return on equity, which determines its expected profitability while passing expenses through to ratepayers. CMP’s preemptive move comes at a time of sky-high electricity rates driven by the Northeast’s dependence on natural gas, volatility in global energy markets, and continuing supply chain issues from the pandemic and war in Ukraine. Governor Mills also wasted no time in criticizing CMP’s move, describing it as “outrageous” and adding “insult to injury” to Maine people, while declaring she will “fight this” by directing her Energy Office to oppose it and urging the Commission to reject it. Acadia Center also condemned the announcement in the Portland Press Herald:

Approving a rate increase before the PUC adopts those new standards for the state’s utilities and starts the grid planning process would be putting the cart before the horse, said Jeff Marks, Maine director and senior policy advocate for the Acadia Center, an organization pushing for policies to protect the environment and transition to clean energy sources. Marks said the new law will require the utilities to meet new standards to ensure they are using customer revenue wisely, and it also calls for a wide-ranging plan to enhance the state’s power grid. Deciding on a rate increase before either measure is in place doesn’t make sense, he said. “These rate hikes show we can’t start too soon,” Marks said. “With this type of rate hike at this point, we need to start the accountability process.” Marks also said that a comprehensive plan to modernize Maine’s electric grid could help keep rates low, and that giving CMP a rate hike to make some changes before the overall plan is even underway would be premature. The new grid plan, along with new accountability measures, “will shine a spotlight” on how well the utilities are providing electric service to Mainers, Marks said, adding that analysis should be done before CMP seeks a rate hike, not after.

Because of the reforms enacted by the Maine Legislature and signed by the Governor, Maine has the opportunity to design a clean, affordable, reliable grid in a cost-effective manner that considers the state’s goals and targets to decarbonize the grid and electrify buildings and transportation and do so in a way that supports equity and minimizes impacts on underserved, overburdened, and vulnerable communities. The Commission will launch the grid planning process later this year with significant stakeholder engagement and outreach. Utilities will have eighteen months to develop and submit plans. Stakeholders again will have the opportunity to weigh in. This integrated grid planning process, along with requirements to consider climate pollution strategies and reductions, could provide hundreds of millions of dollars in ratepayer benefits and savings while appropriately assessing environmental, climate, and equity impacts of electric policies, programs, and projects. This, in turn, will help Maine lead the way in reducing dependence on out-of-state natural gas, fighting climate change, and enabling the grid to make way for cost-effective heat pumps in our living rooms, efficiency improvements in our attics and basements, electric vehicles in our garages and driveways, and the capacity to store excess energy for when we need it most.

Acadia Center is pleased to see that CMP wants to invest in smarter technology, more robust infrastructure, better rate design, and renewable energy interconnection. However, Acadia Center urges restraint on increased utility rates and profits until the Commission, in partnership with utilities and Maine people, evaluates the investments truly needed to benefit Maine people with lower, less volatile long-term rates, cleaner air, a stronger, more reliable grid, and better access to clean energy resources.

Jeff Marks
Maine Director

Oliver Tully
Director, Utility Innovation and Reform

Zero Emissions to Mile Zero

Growing up the son of a classic car enthusiast, I would often hear tales and vagaries of the “Great American Road Trip.” I would picture our own family zig-zagging across the country in one of the cars my father restored—a turquoise Ford Thunderbird, a coral Chevy Nomad, or even my personal favorite, his black and red 1958 Edsel with the revolutionary Teletouch automatic transmission. So, it should come as little surprise that in the ensuing decades I have lived out those dreams—driving up and down the Pacific Coast Highway, exploring family history in Quebec, and meandering through the Great Smoky Mountains. But my latest trip was something I could never have imagined as a young child staring at the Edsel’s unique horse collar grill. Because my latest road trip was…all- electric! 

A few years ago, I had the chance to buy a used 2015 Tesla Model S 70 with approximately 236 miles of range for significantly less than even the pre-pandemic prices of most battery electric vehicles (EVs) on the market today. It was an outlier deal then—a “steal” really—and has only improved with age. And because early Tesla models included unlimited complimentary “Supercharging” at the company’s international, proprietary network of fast Level 3 charging stations, I was inspired to start plotting a new generation of road trips. I started with some proving trips around the region—to friends in New Jersey and Maryland; through Mohawk Trail and to the top of Mount Washington; and to a wedding in rural upstate New York. But as the pandemic took its toll, my wanderlust grew exponentially. I soon started planning a longer challenge that would take me to the end of U.S. Route 1 in Key West, Florida.   

Lots of people talk about having range anxiety. I quickly eliminated any marginal concerns through my early proving trips. But ahead of this journey, I did have what I will call range “curiosity.” I wondered whether the projected battery range would hold up under actual driving conditions, especially as temperatures and speed limits would increase significantly as I navigated further south. Would the weight of passengers and luggage cut noticeably into efficiency? Would there be enough chargers around to facilitate diversions from the main path? Would the charging stops become more onerous as the trip wore on? And despite over $4.30 per gallon gasoline, would I conclude it would have been more practical to drive a gas-powered vehicle for this trip?

To make a long story short, I continue to find both short and long trips far more pleasant in my electric vehicle than any gas powered vehicle I’ve driven, and I would be very happy to never drive a gas-powered vehicle again.

The Journey

My first stop was a reunion at my college roommate’s apartment in New Jersey where I plugged into a Level 2 charger overnight. With a full battery, I drove the nearly 200 miles south that morning to rendezvous with a friend at the Hanover, Maryland, Supercharging station—he was carrying out the time-honored tradition of driving his mother’s vehicle back north from Florida for the summer. We grabbed lunch and coffee and soon were back on our respective missions. He recommended a route south which would take me across the Potomac through eastern Maryland and bypass much of the weekend traffic surrounding the Capital Beltway. Thanks to this impromptu diversion, I stumbled onto an antique shop in Port Royal, Virginia, nearly purchasing the stone sasquatch prominently displayed outside—maybe on the way back!

From Port Royal, I made great time through Virginia and the Carolinas and into Georgia, pulling off to explore here and there and eventually stopping for the night at a hotel with its own bank of Superchargers. 

Well rested and fully charged, I set my sights on South Florida to pick up family flying in for the week. I finally encountered my first problem of the trip—I was unexpectedly ahead of schedule. I thought I’d hit more traffic…I thought charging stops would take more time…I thought I would need an extra day to comfortably arrive on time in Miami. So, I started researching destinations not on my original itinerary—would there be a rocket launch from Cape Canaveral? Concerts? Sports? As it turns out, the NHL’s Tampa Bay Lightning were hosting a playoff game and outdoor viewing party on the plaza right outside their arena. After a quick check of hotels in the area, I found one within walking distance of the arena that also offered complimentary Level 2 charging—ideal for an overnight stay. So, onto Tampa and what turned out to be a fantastic and lively party complete with music, lawn games, food, and perfect weather!  

In the morning, I was back on the road, driving south and then turning east across “Alligator Alley.” About halfway across this long stretch of isolated highway partitioning both the Big Cypress National Reserve and Florida Everglades, I stopped at the Supercharger on the Miccosukee Reservation and watched the sun rise with a couple charging their car to make the reverse trip up to Tampa and eventually back to Michigan. After sidestepping the largest crickets I’ve ever seen, I was back on the road to South Florida where my family would soon land. We spent the night in Miami Beach where the local parking garage had multiple Level 2 chargers to use for a fee.

The next morning, we all piled into the car, cruised slowly south on Ocean Avenue between South Beach on our left and rows of iconic Art Deco buildings on our right, and then continuing onto the Florida Keys.  

We stopped at one of our favorite lunch spots in Islamorada which also included a Level 2 charger—we didn’t necessarily need to charge but adding about 30 miles of range while we ate lunch gave us enough of a buffer to confidently make it all the way to Key West. The next morning, I drove to Key West City Hall to use their level 2 charger, retrieving it later in the day with nearly a full charge. For the rest of the stay, I kept the car plugged into an outdoor outlet—nothing fancy, just a standard 120-volt outlet to maintain a full charge. We drove back to New England mostly with the windows down, soaking up all of the heat we could, and stopping at a nearly entirely different set of charging stations along the way.  

Next up, the other end of Route 1 in Maine! If I found a sasquatch statute in Virginia—what will I find up there? 

Ruminations from the Road 

  1. Drivers still need incentives to make the switch to zero-emissions vehicles and manufacturers need to solve supply chain woes in order to bring down the cost and build-times of all lower-polluting vehicles. Federal and state tax credits and/or rebates, when designed equitably, can help more people afford EVs which typically carry a higher up-front cost offset over time by lower fueling and maintenance costs. Acadia Center has repeatedly supported expanding EV incentives to used vehicles, lowering the sales price cap for EV incentives, and expanding eligibility to E-bikes. This package of reforms help ensure incentives are helping people that need assistance making the transition rather than subsidizing new vehicles for wealthier individuals that likely don’t require the credit or rebate. 
  2. This trip would likely not have been as easy without access to Tesla’s well-developed proprietary network of fast chargers—this is a complaint I have heard from some of my fellow electric vehicle drivers. I could quickly locate chargers along my route using the built-in navigation system and could always access multiple charging destinations without concern. It will be critical to expand EV charging networks to fully unlock the transformative potential of electric vehicles, including personal, commercial, public transit, and medium– and heavy–duty vehicles. Last year’s federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) included funding to expand the nation’s EV charging network and states are in the process of developing their IIJA plans this summer. My trip demonstrated more hotels could benefit from offering and advertising EV charging amenities on highway billboards to attract wandering travelers looking to recharge body, mind, and car overnight. 
  3. I found stopping every few hours to charge quite refreshing. On all of my past gas-powered road trips, there was always self-imposed pressure to fuel up and get back out as quickly as possible. Since my car has older charging technology, my stops would sometimes take about 30 minutes—the perfect amount of time to use the restroom, maybe grab a bite, stretch my legs, check email, and even go for a light jog or walk. At the same time, as batteries and charging technology continue to improve by leaps and bounds, the number of stops and time to “refill” will continue to decrease. In fact, the 2022 version of my vehicle already has nearly double the range and is able to charge at much higher speeds to make the experience more comparable to stopping for gas. All drivers should consider their wellness on any long drive and build in time to take these breaks even if their vehicles don’t require them as much in the future. Maybe I’m also just choosing better priorities as I get older… 
  4. Electric vehicles are clearly not the only component to a clean transportation transition. Along my journey, I saw wonderful pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, United States Postal Service cargo bicycles, scooter and bike shares, dedicated bus lanes and free transit shuttles, water taxis, and more. We need comprehensive approaches to provide clean transportation options for all users. 
  5. While EVs have zero emissions from the tailpipe, there are still associated emissions from electricity generation and of course the initial manufacturing. It is critical we address all of the life cycle and associated emissions by shifting electrical generation to increasingly rely upon renewables like wind, solar, and energy storage. Similarly, the manufacture of all vehicles, including EVs, needs to pivot rapidly to eliminate extractive and abusive practices and much more must be done to mitigate environmental impacts of mining and manufacturing. At the same time, those raising concerns about the manufacture of EVs should do so in good faith and recognize the long-established and ongoing impacts implicit in the extraction and manufacture of fossil fuels and fossil fuel burning vehicles. 
  6. Finally, no Acadia Center story is complete without data! My total round trip was 3,636.5 miles. I used 1,084.9 kilowatt hours (kWh) for an average of 3.35 miles per kWh or, correspondingly, about 298-Watt hours per mile (Wh/mile). In typical driving conditions, my overall consumption is between 225 and 250 Wh/mile, and I can reasonably theorize the decreased efficiency on this trip was due to a few factors, including: 
    • Higher sustained speeds from southern Virginia through most of Florida due to lower highway congestion and higher posted speed limits; 
    • Increased use of air conditioning from South Carolina through Florida; 
    • Combined weight of passengers and luggage that ranged from 500-1000 pounds throughout the trip; 
    • Driving with the windows down for approximately 1500 miles of the 3,636.5–mile journey; 
  7. Assuming I used a gas-powered hybrid achieving 30 miles per gallon at that week’s East Coast retail average price of $4.33 per gallon, I would have consumed approximately 121 gallons of fuel at a cost of $524. Comparatively, I would have spent approximately $325 on electric charging assuming an average per kWh cost of $0.30—a conservatively higher price for electricity to account for Tesla Supercharging and Blink fees as well as any applicable demand charges or other possible rate structures utilized across the states where I charged. This comparison is illustrative only and admittedly imprecise because of the widespread availability of complimentary electric vehicle charging as a customer amenity. 

For more information: 

Hank Webster, Rhode Island Director & Senior Policy Advocate, hwebster@acadiacenter.org, 401.276.0600 ext.402 

Seizing the Moment to Push for Climate Action in Massachusetts

On Monday, Acadia Center’s Environmental Justice Associate, Joy Yakie, joined advocates from environmental justice organizations, labor union officials, businesses, and other climate activists to reiterate the urgency of climate action. Yakie emphasized that the state can further climate goals and progress towards a smooth and faster transition to clean energy by implementing climate action plans to make its goals a reality. With the funding from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the state can continue to establish its exemplary leadership on state-level climate solutions by making opportunities for an increased clean energy workforce, stated Joe Curtatone, President of Northeast Clean Energy Council (NECEC) and organizer of the press conference. Other speakers and represented groups included the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), Ceres, Browning the Green Space (BGS), GreenRoots, 350 Mass, Mass Renews Alliance, SparkCharge, and others. The full recording of the event can be accessed here.

Increasing Participation for Equitable Outcomes in Climate Decision-making

Climate policies are undeniably strengthened by the inputs of communities most likely to be impacted by such policies. Similarly, exclusion or lack of involvement of communities poised to suffer the detrimental impact of climate change and pollution unequivocally lead to ineffective policies. Communities of color and low-income communities often suffer the repercussions of flawed environmental policies. Hence, for communities to stay resilient in enduring the challenges of a changing climate, it is important to ensure that emerging policies are formed with inputs from the most impacted communities.

Flawed environmental and climate policy decision-making that excluded the voices of vulnerable communities dates back to the 80s. In 1982, residents of Warren County in North Carolina, engaged in a protest to fight against the dumping of 40,000 cubic yards of PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) contaminated soil in their community. PCB chemicals were banned in the United States in 1979 because they harm human and environmental health but are persistent in air, water, and waste. That early demonstration against environmental racism and injustice was the first of many, exposing the injustice that persists when policies exclude the needs of the most vulnerable groups and communities. Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its most recent climate assessment to reiterate the impact climate would have on communities (cities and settlements) situated by the sea or ocean. For these ‘frontline communities’, mitigating climate change impacts demand that their voices and lived experiences need to shape the resultant policies for their specific climate solutions.

Maine’s trailblazing effort to engage Vulnerable Communities to Climate Change

Acadia Center championed LD1682 in Maine with the understanding that state agencies should consider climate and equity in their mandates, starting with the Public Utility Commission (PUC).  LD 1682 – An Act to Require Consideration of Climate Impacts by the Public Utilities Commission and To Incorporate Equity Considerations in Decision-making by State Agencies was considered one of the most far-reaching, impactful climate and equity bills in the 130th Legislature. Parties in PUC cases are already using the law as a basis for stronger PUC actions related to climate change. Environmental and climate justice can help empower Maine’s communities to be healthier and more resilient, and state agencies must support this work.

The passage of LD1682 became the groundwork for the passage of LD2018 – Act to Implement Recommendations Regarding the Incorporation of Equity Considerations in Regulatory Decision Making.  With the implementation of this bill, access to proceedings and the decision-making process would be made possible for environmental justice communities, frontline communities, lower-income communities, and communities of color. More importantly, this bill creates opportunities for supposedly hard-to-reach communities to have access to proceedings that will determine their readiness for climate change. It puts environmental justice and climate action at the center of the state government’s work.

As agencies at all levels of government continue to make strides to undo climate change and ensure a smooth transition to clean energy, it is important to ensure that all communities partake in the policy and decision-making process. A key strategy for equitably tackling climate issues that communities face is continuously improving access to public forums that inform and educate. Including this crucial effort goes beyond providing a balanced perspective in climate policy. It allows communities to have a more productive outcome in effecting change by not reacting but informing the decision-making process.

 

For more information:

Joy Yakie, Environmental Justice Associate, jyakie@acadiacenter.org, 617-742-0054 x110

Jeff Marks, Maine State Director, jmarks@acadiacenter.org, 207.236.6470 ext. 304

 

Acadia Center Releases Its 2021 Annual Report

Today, Acadia Center released its 2021 Annual Report – “Be an Agent of Change” – an interactive microsite that highlights the organization’s 2021 stories of impact and progress and hopes for its future. Acadia Center’s mission is to advance bold, effective, and equitable clean energy solutions for a livable climate and a stronger, more equitable economy. But damaging effects of climate change were unprecedented in 2021. However, also unprecedented was the collective recognition, determination, and willingness to act on climate. This year’s Annual Report outlines Acadia Center’s eagerness to envision bold, systemic solutions, partnered with pragmatic, community-inspired approaches to addressing the climate crisis. 

None of this would be possible without generous individuals and foundations who enthusiastically support Acadia Center’s work. With leadership from our Board of Directors, and our dedicated and passionate staff, we can accelerate the change communities urgently need. Thank you for your unwavering encouragement and partnership. 

Read the full report HERE. 

Heat Pumps in Real Life

Here at Acadia Center, we’re big proponents of air source heat pumps. As we pointed out in EnergyVision 2030, electrifying heating can take a typical New England home from 6-8 tons of GHGs per year to less than one ton, which is why New England needs to electrify at least 10% of its building stock to be on track for 2030 climate goals. Heat pumps work by moving heat, not generating it – so they can be 3-4x as efficient as other heating or cooling sources. As I said in Wirecutter, “a heat pump is probably the biggest thing that consumers can do to help fight the climate crisis.” But even more important than climate, I have young kids, one with asthma, and our carbon monoxide alarm has gone off 3 times in the 9 months we’ve lived in this house. I’m getting anxious about the idea of burning fossil fuels in my house, particularly after reading studies that highlight the potential health impacts.  

So, in early May, I put my money where my big mouth is and electrified my 1880s, gas-boiler-heated house.  For now, we’re keeping the high efficiency boilers in place in case we need them in the next polar vortex, but I’ve already warned my husband that I’m going to fight hard to avoid turning on the fossil fuel system this winter.  Plus, with heat pumps, we got air conditioning just in time to sleep comfortably and cool during the recent heat wave!  

Here’s what I learned from the experience: 

  • Think about what you want beforehand: we don’t have a forced air system (with which you could just drop in a central heat pump) so we went with mini-splits. I knew I wanted to get both heat and air conditioning capacity from the heat pumps, so asked for cold climate heat pumps (to carry us into, and maybe even through, the winter) with a unit in each of our bedrooms and the kitchen for air conditioning capacity. That also let us get rid of the ugly and high energy window units – savings right off the bat. 
  • Think about what you are flexible on: I explained what I wanted, and then asked each vendor how best to get there and got proposals in multiple configurations. Do I need units everywhere, or can the living room/dining room/kitchen blob of doors and walls all get heated and cooled from one unit in the kitchen? (Yes, as it turns out) Can we put a smaller one in our family room over the garage because we also have a wood stove there? (Yes, but the price difference isn’t as much as you’d think, so we went with the big one to ensure enough AC).  
  • Shop Around: I got quotes from 2 local heat pump specialists and one all things HVAC company, and the bids were different enough that I asked a lot of follow up questions did additional research into the different equipment they recommended, why they suggested it, what assumptions they made, and what “goodies” like wifi enablement came with the system.  I went with LG, which was a bit cheaper than the Mitsubishi hyper heat units. Each vendor also offered different financing options, in addition to the Mass Save HEAT loan, with 0% financing on up to $25,000 of efficiency improvements including heat pumps. 
  • Look for incentives: Thanks to MassSave, we got a $10,000 rebate for our whole home system (7 heat pumps in total on 3 compressors). Because I know the MassSave program (I hold a seat on the EEAC), I knew to get my weatherization done first and ask for the right kind of units to ensure that the system I got would qualify for the max incentive. Check out the rebate forms up front to make sure you qualify, too. 
  • Book it ASAP: Heat pumps are a hot market. Once you decide what you want and who you’re going to work with, don’t sit on the idea. I was able to get my install scheduled about a month after I made the call, but I’ve heard wait times are increasing. 
  • Get ready for disruption… mostly outside: I was surprised that it took a full week of long days to get my system up and running, particularly since all the inside work seemed to be completed on day one. The pipes that carry the coolant to the wall units take a lot of planning and work, throughout the house, basement and garage. Then they’ve got to test the lines to make sure the coolant is working and won’t leak out.  
  • Read the manual, ask questions, and learn new tricks: heat pumps have a lot of awesome settings (ionization, energy saving, jet mode, even programmable timers) but it can be complex to figure it out. Plus, the way that you save energy with a heat pump (set it and forget it) is very different than the way you save money with a gas system (though setbacks and catchups). The temperatures you’re used to seeing on the thermostat may also change. I’ve left the unit installed high on the wall in my office set at 76 all week but it’s been a pleasant constant 72 at my desk, in fact almost a little chilly! It silently blows air every now and then (seriously, this thing is QUIET!) and just keeps me cool, no questions asked.     
  • Bolt the remotes to the wall: my brilliant installers thought to put my heat pump remotes in brackets next to the light switches. Now we always know where the remote is – even when my husband was the last one to touch it.  Wonder if that trick would work for the TV, too? 

I’m so happy I made the leap. For me, it was an investment in my home and my family’s quality of life, more so than a chance to save on energy bills. But they’ve sure delivered on that – the heat pumps are so quiet and so effective at cooling. I don’t have a great sense of how much power they’re using (almost want to rent a kill a watt meter from the library to figure it out!) but look forward to seeing my electric bill and evaluating the impact they had, compared to last summer’s window units.   

Look out gas stove. You’re next on the chopping block. 

Connecticut Legislative Update

When the final gavel came down in Hartford on May 4, Connecticut passed historic climate legislation. After 3 years of mediocre to dismal results striving to fight greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and buildings the passage of the Connecticut Clean Air Act was itself a breath of fresh air.  

People from all walks of life came together to make this happen.  True, it took some time, but over the last 2 to 3 years this broad-based human effort has been building, restructuring, changing and growing.  One of the reasons for this success was the comprehensive policy known as the Transportation Climate Initiative (TCI).  But TCI went up in flames in 2021, so how could it be responsible for Connecticut’s success this year?   

The people. The people fought to refine the transportation message. They revamped the Transportation Climate Coalition and worked toward tackling emissions. Advocates talked in plain language, and put equity into every message, not as an afterthought or an add-on but as a central framework of all our goals. What was the message that resonated and finally got the attention of legislators?   Climate change is real. Entire communities are becoming permanently sick. Our children can’t get to school safely.  We are unable to afford clean transportation options. Finally, the people were heard, and decision-makers responded. 

 SB 4 – The Connecticut Clean Air Act – was passed. It includes: 

  • Electrification transit buses 
  • Phasing out of diesel school buses for environmental justice communities by 2030, 100% zero-emission and alternative fuel for the state in 2035 and 100% zero-emission by 2040 for the state. 
  • Electric Vehicle rebates: focused on low- and- middle income residents 
  • E- Bike rebates: minimum of $500 for up to $3000 bike 
  • Implementation of the California emission standards on medium-and -heavy duty vehicles 

SB 4 gives Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) the authority to move forward with medium- and heavy-duty vehicle regulations adopted by a growing number of states from coast to coast, including California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington. This will allow the state to proceed with adoption of various life-saving regulations that address nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and would put more zero-emission trucks on the road, including the Advanced Clean Trucks rule and the Heavy- Duty Omnibus rule.  

These rules will deliver clean air by deploying more electric trucks and by slashing pollution from diesel trucks currently on the roads. The bill also invests in and transitions the state fleet, transit buses, and school buses to electric, introduces consumer e-bike rebates, and expands access to electric vehicle charging. 

This bill encompassed many of the goals of TCI and boldly put equity front and center.  The coalition of people brought together 2 to 3 years ago reached back into the communities and said, “join us now, together we can do this.” And the people did.  Real momentum built and the legislative champions were emboldened.  People started to see the path forward. Decision makers were out of the building riding e- bikes and driving EVs.  How does this make a difference? Because talking directly to each other…. on the grass, outside the halls for the capital, creates an environment where all are heard and everyone was learning and listening.  The time for meaningful climate change policy was within reach. 

Acadia Center is proud and honored to have helped create this victory in Connecticut.  Acadia Center uses our data and research to make the case for good policies to be passed. The case is made with modeling, analysis, research, and dissemination of important and compelling reports to decision-makers who can vote to change the status quo. The community, advocates, and legislators worked together to make a difference.    

Other significant legislation that passed the 2022 session  

Bills Transmitted to the Governor