Why Democrats joined Trump’s pipeline push

A once-dormant debate over natural gas pipelines in the Northeast is back — courtesy of President Donald Trump.

The idea of building pipelines roiled the region a decade ago. The controversy all but disappeared amid political opposition, as officials in New York and other states ramped up climate targets and rejected permits for planned pipeline projects.

Acadia Center, an environmental group, estimates that natural gas transmission capacity into New England has increased 40 percent since 2014. But those expansion projects have failed to provide consumers with financial relief, said Jamie Dickerson, the group’s senior director for the climate and clean energy program.

“If the concern is the rising cost of folks’ gas bills — which, obviously, it rightly is — I think the logical step is to get off gas and diversify your energy supply and not to double down more on the fuel that’s been sort of driving bills up this winter,” Dickerson said.

To read the full article from E&E News, click here.

Cutting clean energy won’t lower New England utility bills, advocates say

A growing chorus of New England state officials — and not just Republicans — is calling for cuts to clean energy programs in an attempt to rein in high electric bills.

These efforts are underway everywhere from Maine, where legislators are trying to repeal incentives for rooftop and community solar, to deep-blue Massachusetts, where regulators recently slashed $500 million from a proposed energy-efficiency plan.

The irony, clean energy advocates say, is that many of the investments under threat contribute relatively little to customers’ monthly bills and save everyone money in the long run.

“They see these programs as some sort of addition that’s being put on their bill that they don’t see the effects of,” said Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation for climate nonprofit Acadia Center. ​“Cutting these programs will not really save us money, and it will actually end up costing us more money in the long term.”

To read the full article from Canary Media, click here.

Two New England energy companies in surprising alliance with fossil fuel lobby, undercutting climate targets

Last year, two major energy companies working in Massachusetts joined the ranks of an innocuous sounding group: the Consumer Energy Alliance. The organization calls itself “the voice of the energy consumer,” while espousing the “all-of-the-above” approach to energy — oil, natural gas, wind, and solar.

But, according to financial documents, the alliance was formed and is operated by a fossil fuel lobbying group based in Houston. Its stated purpose includes “the promotion and defense of natural gas.”

In Massachusetts, a state that’s set aggressive climate targets, cooperation and buy-in from utilities is a pillar of how the state plans to get there. That makes it “incredibly troubling” that both Eversource, one of the state’s largest gas and electric utilities, and Avangrid, offshore wind developer and the parent company of Berkshire Gas, became members of the alliance last year, said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director for the advocacy group the Acadia Center.

“At a time when we know we need to be transitioning off of fossil fuels as soon as is practicable, these companies have instead opted to join with a group dedicated to frustrating that aim, and indeed directly at odds with some of the positive initiatives that these companies have been advancing in the Northeast” like geothermal networks, offshore wind transmission, and more, Murray said.

To read the full article from the Boston Globe, click here.

Massachusetts-based company launches program to fund community solar projects

With the federal dollars for renewable energy slowing to a trickle or stopping altogether, a Cambridge-based company is looking to provide funding for community solar projects in underserved areas through a new renewable energy credit (REC) program.

With uncertainty surrounding federal funding, programs like Solstice’s renewable energy credits could help bridge the gap for organizations trying to find the money to launch renewable energy projects, said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the Acadia Center, a non-profit research and advocacy organization dedicated to combatting climate change. Solar developers and organizations working to adopt solar use a variety of different funding mechanisms and that extra $50,000 to $160,000 can put a project over the top, especially for smaller organizations, he added.

“We need to be creative in this environment about how we fund projects, and this seems like it could be promising,” said Murray.

To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.

Transforming Connecticut’s Grid: A Smarter Approach to Clean Energy Planning

In November, Vote Solar collaborated with partners, Acadia Center, Save the Sound, and Conservation Law Foundation, to submit comments to Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) regarding the future of our electric grid planning. And I know, utility commissions are not a kitchen table topic, but their decisions—like setting energy prices—have real impacts on your household budget and Connecticut’s clean energy future.

To read the full article from Vote Solar, click here.

The $500 million cut to Mass Save budget is ‘short-sighted,’ climate activists say

After gas bills spiked across Massachusetts, state officials are reducing the proposed budget for the Mass Save energy efficiency program by $500 million – a move environmentalists call “short-sighted” and argue will increase costs for residents in the long run.

The Department of Public Utilities approved a budget of $4.5 billion for Mass Save – which helps homes and businesses become more energy efficient through projects paid for by a surcharge on electricity and gas bills – for the next three years, after originally proposing a $5 billion budget. The reduction is expected to save residents and businesses about 25 percent on their gas bills and 15 percent on their electric bills, though exact amounts will vary, according to DPU officials.

“This plan, as ambitious as it is, actually only gets us to about half or less than half of the greenhouse gas reduction that we need to have according to our clean energy and climate plan,” said Kyle Murray, Massachusetts program director at the Acadia Center, a non-profit research and advocacy organization dedicated to combatting climate. “Even this plan is a compromise in itself.”

The sticker shock of the high gas bills is partly due to an unseasonably cold winter and the fact that Mass Save only increases its rate once every three years, Murray said. The increase in the Mass Save budget barely keeps up with inflation, he added, noting that the cuts were “disappointing” and “short-sighted.” (In the previous three-year plan, the program had a budget of $3.94 billion.)

Several environmental and climate leaders, including Murray, have advocated for alternative ways of funding the program but acknowledge the challenge of funding the program through the Legislature, particularly in an environment where federal funding for climate projects is at risk.

To read the full article from Commonwealth Beacon, click here.

Energy efficiency program skimmed to deliver utility rate relief

New RI report takes step towards reducing energy usage, emissions of large buildings

A new report by the Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources is hoping to create an inventory of large buildings and their energy sources to assess how the Ocean State can lower emissions.

The report, titled the “Executive Climate Change Coordinating Council Report on Building Energy Benchmarking and Performance Standards,” was released on Feb. 10. When creating the report, the OER consulted over 13 government agencies, labs and utilities organizations, among other groups.

Kislak and Emily Koo, senior policy advocate and Rhode Island program director at Acadia Center, shared similar concerns. But both affirmed that despite financial uncertainty, progress is still possible.

“I fully anticipate that whatever plan we make will take into account available funding sources,” Kislak said.

“I don’t think (financial uncertainty) should, in any way, impact our commitment to tracking our own energy usage and reducing building emissions in the state,” Koo added.

To read the full article from the Brown Daily Herald, click here.

Progressives Say They Want Clean Energy. They Held Up This Hydro Project for Years.

On a bright, sunny Monday in the summer of 2016, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker sat outside the Bay State’s gold-domed statehouse to sign a bill designed to ensure that “Massachusetts and New England can remain a leader in clean and renewable energy production.” The bill sought to curtail the region’s carbon emissions without driving up electricity bills. To that end, the Baker administration was authorized to coordinate the purchase of clean electricity generated from, among other potential sources, wind turbines planned for the shallow water off the state’s southern coast and hydropower generated by dammed rivers in Canada. But because Massachusetts did not share a border with Canada, the new hydropower would have to travel through a neighboring state. And that, many quickly realized, would add several complications.

The concessions had a powerful political impact, inducing the Conservation Law Foundation and the Acadia Center, both leading environmental groups, to endorse the venture. It gave Mills cover to come out publicly in support as well, her endorsement helping to convince the state’s Public Utility Commission to grant the project a certificate of public convenience and necessity in April. By then it seemed as though the whole thing was settled.

To read the full article from Politico, click here.

Mass. residents will see lower gas bills for March and April, regulators say

State regulators are forcing natural gas companies to temporarily reduce total gas bills by at least 5% next month after public outcry over skyrocketing rates from Eversource, National Grid and other companies.

Experts and advocates say a “perfect storm” this winter caused the dramatic spikes. That includes a colder winter, economic pressures for volatile fossil fuel sources and a gas pipeline system within a monopoly of utility companies. And most of the cost comes down to the utilities’ delivery charges.

The GSEP was created in 2014 to accelerate the replacement of leak-prone gas pipes.

“That was a safety issue as well as a climate issue. So [the state] determined it was worth repairing or replacing,” said Kyle Murray, director of state program implementation at Acadia Center.

Costs have mushroomed, even as gas leaks continue, and Murray says it could cost a total of $40 billion by 2039 to completely address.

Part of consumers’ bills also fund the Mass Save program, which offers rebates and incentives for residents to make their homes more energy efficient. The program’s costs continue to rise: it’s about to enter its next three-year cycle, and has asked the Department of Public Utilities to allocate $5 billion — a jump of $1 billion over the prior cycle. Those costs go back to ratepayers, too.

“It’s still awaiting approval of the DPU. And you know, that is a big jump,” said Murray, who added it’s keeping with inflation.

To read the full article from GBH, click here.